Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moulton: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
r
Line 77: Line 77:
::::::...working on that now. Sit tight plz. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::...working on that now. Sit tight plz. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I didn't mean that we couldn't continue with the compromise, just that it's disappointing that an administrator would ignore the fact that a compromise was in the making and impose his own ideas anyway :P Oh well, I support the compromise option for what it's worth. <small>'''[[User:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">naerii</font>]] - [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">talk</font>]]'''</small> 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I didn't mean that we couldn't continue with the compromise, just that it's disappointing that an administrator would ignore the fact that a compromise was in the making and impose his own ideas anyway :P Oh well, I support the compromise option for what it's worth. <small>'''[[User:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">naerii</font>]] - [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">talk</font>]]'''</small> 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Well I am sure they will get it all figured out. I am not really even sure of the rules and policies here, so I am good and confused.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:53, 14 May 2008

User:Moulton

Attack page - Content of "evidence" links is blatantly misrepresented. See User:Random832/User:Moulton.

  • speedy delete as an attack page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As evidence of past and current misdeeds. This info will be needed for other actions on WP attributable to meat puppets acting at Moulton's behest. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence is full of liesblatant misrepresentation of the content of Moulton's posts to WR. If it's trimmed down to statements of things he actually did with links to him actually doing them, it _might_ be acceptable (however, "evidence" pages have been deleted under G10 before) --Random832 (contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until this current phase of Meat Puppetry and other lobbying by an editor who is not in good standing subsides. We have recently had several efforts to carry out Moulton's wishes, and to unblock Moulton without following proper procedures. This is needed to caution others from acting precipitously in the current situation.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, his user page should not be used as a place to make accusations against him. Everyking (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what misrepresentation? Are you saying that his RFC didn't result in a ban, or that the arbcomm didn't turn down his request for unblocking? Are you saying that he hasn't engaged in a campaign to get people to make his changes for him? Or that he hasn't said that he has contacted the press? Please explain what you see as misrepresentation. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am saying that ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE of the links to posts by Moulton on WR in fact contains what they are represented as containing. I am not saying that he hasn't engaged in a campaign to get people to make his changes for him, but I have clicked every link and have seen no evidence of such a campaign. That the links are represented as being such evidence is in fact a misrepresentation. --Random832 (contribs) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about the link to Moulton's RfC? Does it not link to Moulton's RfC? What about the link to Moulton's Arbcomm appeal? Does it not direct the reader to Moulton's Arbcomm appeal? I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that there are a couple links that go where they say they're going is supposed to somehow invalidate the issue that there are A DOZEN links to posts on WR where he is supposedly "recruiting meatpuppets" and is in fact doing nothing of the sort? It's insidious because "[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" looks so impressive until you actually bother to click the links. --Random832 (contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment No opinion as of right now, but I'm puzzled by Random's claim that the page is "full of lies". Moreoever, G10 is generally used on evidence pages that don't serve a useful purpose or are part of difs someone is in the process of compiling. That said, it may just make sense to have it as a separate page in userspace, especially if its current form is making people uncomfortable. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The same people who are trying to unban Moulton have taken great pains to whitewash the reasons he was banned. His userpage is, like many other banned users' pages, used to document his misdeeds. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is utterly unnecessary and is obviously upsetting to the guy. It's mostly speculation from what I can see and serves little purpose to the project here - Alison ❤ 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • serves little purpose to the project here - funny coincidence that this is being put up for deletion at the same time people are trying to get him unbanned. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funnier that it's as a result of FM's modification of the page, more like. Things were just fine as they were, IMO. Note also that in this edit to Moulton's talk page a few weeks back, I refer to the word "kindness". We could use a little more of that around here, to be honest. If you wish to have collated evidence on why he's blocked right now, at least let's have the decency to put it somewhere else and maybe link to it, instead of desecrating his tombstone? - Alison ❤ 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it were his tombstone -- that is, if we knew he wasn't coming back -- and we wished to show kindness by not rehashing the past, that would be one thing. But it's not. Whitewashing his history here is the first step to getting him unbanned. And this is only made more-relavant by the fact that he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned. Raul654 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • " he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned."[citation needed] --Random832 (contribs) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just to pick one really obvious example - "I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it.... There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well." Short of following that up with "Hey Alison, why don't you go make some edits on those articles for me?" (and I'm only using Alison as an example; not because I believe she's done anything untoward) I don't know how much more obvious he could be. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) I don't know why you're bringing my name directly into it here, Raul. I've never made an edit for the guy in my life here, nor have I ever been requested to. I don't normally edit BLPs, sticking rather to my chosen topics of pharmacology and Irish-related matters. I don't really know nor care about Rosalind Picard nor the history of the article and I'd rather you refactored that bald accusation - Alison ❤ 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, I see your subsequent edit now ... - Alison ❤ 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • (ec)That he's happy about someone's edits does not mean that they made the edits because he told them to. --Random832 (contribs) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Or perhaps we could recognize the perfectly obvious - that after thanking people for all the good work they did for him on the Rosalind Picard article, that he's asking them to go do the same for the James Tour article for him. And lo, suddenly there were a bunch of edits to an otherwise-dormant article. But I suppose that's just a coincidence. Raul654 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, we could resort to conspiracy theories as you suggest. Or we could go with the simpler explanation, being that there were real BLP problems with the articles in the first place, he pointed them out, and other people used their own judgement. --Random832 (contribs) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Raul. We have an active campaign by the editor against Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can someone point out to where Moulton is either banned or community banned, please? As I note that another administrator unblocked him earlier today, that would indicate that a community ban is not in place here. Can someone clarify? - Alison ❤ 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Community banned here. And the arbcom tacitly approved it when they rejected a Moulton arbitration case as unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeing that as any evidence of a ban whatsoever. Even the thread title is all wrong, and basically nobody has discussed it. We recently had this exact issue over User:Vintagekits and my original ANI posting over that incident was way stronger than the one cited here. And it wasn't declared a "ban" with a whole lot more editors weighing in on it. Furthermore, tacit approval of anything from ArbCom is insufficient, IMO. I want to see that in writing, please - Alison ❤ 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • An ANI thread saying "I'm blocking this guy for exhausting everyone's patience" is a community ban, even if the title of the thread doesn't explicitely say "I'm community banning this guy". And 6 people chimed in to support, and nobody felt it was worth opposing. Sorry if that's not enough for you, but that's about average for this kind of thing. If there was anything problematic, the arbcom would have heard the case -- or at least made some comment about it. They did not. Therefore, Moulton is community banned. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Community ban means "no admin willing to unblock" - arbcom not opening a case does not constitute an endorsement of the ban, only an acknowledgement that it is outside their jurisdiction. --Random832 (contribs) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • A block that no other admin is willing to undo is a de facto ban. Moulton's been blocked for many moons now, and tried quite a few angles to get unblocked, including unblock-en-l, complaining to Mike Godwin, and appealing formally to ArbCom. All of those appeals were turned down, and until now there hasn't been any serious consideration, that I'm aware of, on the part of any admin to unblock him. It's reasonable to call that a ban, but of course if there are now admins seriously willing to unblock him, a new discussion may be in order. This wouldn't be the ideal place for it, though. MastCell Talk 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact keep, no reason to not have a page with a banned tag. I agree that the evidence should be removed however, and have done so myself. naerii - talk
  • Keep User is directing a disruptive meatpuppetry campaign offsite and has been lobbying admins to undo his community indef block, making his userpage the logical place to maintain any relevant evidence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No he's not, if [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] is all the evidence you have to show for it. --Random832 (contribs) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything, his user page is the logical place to let him write a defense. It is not our custom that others can edit our user pages to add accusations; what would happen if I added accusations to your user page, or you added accusations to mine? The custom is that the user gets to decide what goes on the page, and ordinarily you don't get to see the views of their opponents on that page. Everyking (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the community ban is laughable. Six people do not represent the community. This is not customary and is inappropriate for a user page. It's unnecessarily upsetting to the editor. And stop using "community ban" like it means something in this case. It doesn't apply. Lara❤Love 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I would invite you to study the actual RfC that lead to the "community ban". I think you might find a few more there who considered this situation than just 6.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't one of the issues with the community sanction noticeboard the short amount of time some discussions were open before the user was banned? Any thread on ANI is only going to be visible for about 24 hours anyway, and those six users showed up over the course of only three hours. --Random832 (contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, did you happen to inspect the RfC? Did you notice that it was open for a little longer than 3 hours? (September 5, 2007- September 11, 2007) The same was true of the RfAr request I believe.--Filll (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page should simply indicate that Moulton is banned, because, well, he is. Links to his RfC and the ArbCom appeal are OK but not essential. The page shouldn't be used to present "evidence" against him, especially since he can't respond and he is, after all, already banned. The idea behind a ban is that the user be shown the door firmly but courteously; there's no need to keep kicking him. If there's serious discussion of unbanning him, then the evidence could be presented in the appropriate venue, but his userpage is not that venue. This current revision by Naerii looks fine. Deletion's not the answer, since banned users typically have the "ban" template, at least, on their userpage, and links to ban-related discussions are useful for institutional memory. What we should delete is his talk page, but that's another story. MastCell Talk 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the RFC, I see you repeatedly using this set of links: [1][2][3] to support an assertion (that Rosalind Picard is in fact anti-evolution and that Moulton knows this to be the case) without making any explanation of how these links support this assertion. You link to a blog post by Moulton as evidence that he in fact supports Intelligent Design himself, without explaining how this supports that assertion. So, I suppose that the quality of evidence that FM posted on the userpage was par for the course. --Random832 (contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picard has subsequently clarified her position somewhat, as is noted in her biography here. This was requested repeatedly by myself, by Durova through Moulton, by Kim Bruning through Moulton, and by Chang, the New York Times reporter. Nevertheless, there is considerably more evidence than what was compiled in the RfC, including private emails which I would share with the Arbcomm committee if this is deemed appropriate and necessary. However, I was under the impression that this page was not the page to reargue this RfC. Am I mistaken?--Filll (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the original links, by themselves, justified any of your assertions? All I see - both in the version of this page that I nominated to delete and in the RFC, is a lot of "look at the pretty links", and not very much actual justified accusations. --Random832 (contribs) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there being "more evidence" is immaterial if this "more evidence" is on average the same quality as was typical of the "evidence" I've actually looked at. --Random832 (contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1)This is not the place to argue this, or reargue this, as has been repeatedly noted (2)Aggressively challenging me in this fashion about a case that is many months old at this point is a bit inappropriate, don't you think? This was not done precipitously, or by just one or two people. This was not done whimsically, or out of some desire for revenge. (3)Why not read a bit about the new RfAr if you are so anxious for reading material?--Filll (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I decided to be bold and put Mastcell's suggestion into effect. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now the undertow has deleted it. People can be so impressively stupid *sigh*. naerii - talk 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I recommend that nobody restores it without a consensus.. we don't need people wheel warring over a user page of all things. naerii - talk 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - that was the 4th delete/undelete action today. Wheel-warring to delete a page under active discussion at MfD is a disappointingly poor administrative decision, but we may as well let this discussion run its course before doing anything else, since there's no fire. MastCell Talk 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's disappointing is that we were well on our way to reaching a compromise. naerii - talk 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still can. MastCell Talk 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we can't do the compromise. I am confused. I don't really know the rules on this sort of thing to be honest. I have to rely on more experienced people, but I think some way to warn people from doing stupid things while this is ongoing is quite reasonable, if it is permitted.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...working on that now. Sit tight plz. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that we couldn't continue with the compromise, just that it's disappointing that an administrator would ignore the fact that a compromise was in the making and impose his own ideas anyway :P Oh well, I support the compromise option for what it's worth. naerii - talk 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am sure they will get it all figured out. I am not really even sure of the rules and policies here, so I am good and confused.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Moulton&oldid=212426154"