User:Filll/RfC Moulton
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
User:Moulton has unfortunately evolved into a singularly unproductive element on Wikipedia, particularly on the articles Rosalind Picard, James Tour and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Moulton constantly seeks to sublimate earnest discussion into repetitive debate and discussion structures that produce no results while exclusively promoting the pro-ID viewpoint [1] [2][3][4] while ignoring the full measure of available information, and at the same time loudly and repeatedly proclaiming he's opposed to ID and its agents, such as the Discovery Institute.
Desired outcome
We would like to see the following outcomes from this RfC:
- Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to learn and abide by the project's fundamental polices and guidelines.
- Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to immediately desist from edit warring on any and all articles related to the Discovery Institute, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, Rosalind Picard or James Tour.
- Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to desist from badgering, harassment and disrupting talk pages, or canvassing for help in doing so.
- Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to recuse himself permanently from editing any article which represents a WP:COI for him, Rosalind Picard in particular.
- Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to recuse himself permanently from editing all articles related to Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent design and related controversies.
Description
user:Moulton has an obsession with such narrowness to the exclusion of readily available overviews of the topic from more reliable sources that contradict the pro-ID sources and objections he is promoting. He often quibbles over widely accepted facts (see [5] for example) and definitions using the rhetorical arguments of the ID campaign with the net effect of driving discussion away from the acknowlegement of reliable mainstream sources with many baseless objections and attempts to redefine common definitions (for example, Moulton levels charges of spinning or "reframing" against the DI, Wikipedia, the New York Times and other editors at least 23 times on the talk page, such as at [6], and claiming that therefore we cannot interpret what is written as what is really meant, etc). In the course of his disruptive objections Moulton has an unfortunate habit of making constant ad hominem attacks and focusing on the "character" of Wikipedia editors, particularly those he opposes, to promote a dismissal of their comments while obfuscating the actual facts being discussed (see [7] for an example). By continually resurrecting and injecting personal gripes into new discussions, Moulton has sought to prevent any in-depth discussion of the actual topic. For example, there are endless fights about whether the petition consists of one or two sentences, about whether the petition is controversial or not, about whether the petition was titled properly or not when Picard signed it (but has been able to provide any sources one way or the other on this issue), about whether the petition is anti-evolution or not, and about whether the New York Times is a reliable source or not. This is incredibly trying for anyone trying to make progress on the article and understand his concerns. He is clearly unable to accept that he cannot impose his will unilaterally on others on Wikipedia, and make up his own unsourced information to include in articles.
User:Moulton began editing on December 21, 2005, but only edited intermittently until August 22, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Moulton became obsessed with editing Rosalind Picard, and with editing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a petition she allegedly signed. Moulton's main claim initially was that Picard was induced to sign the Dissent from Darwinism petition fraudulently[8][9] and her position was and is diametrically opposed to that expressed by the petition and its Discovery Institute supporters. Moulton also claimed that The New York Times was guilty of shoddy journalism [10] and unethical behavior by not confirming this "fact" which he has repeatedly alleged (see for example, [11]), and Wikipedia is compounding the situation by using the New York Times as a reliable source. He aggressively harangued and lobbied many editors repeatedly with this POV, refusing to consider any other explanation or other interpretation but his own, which appears to have evolved over the last 10 days.[12] However, as editing has progressed, it has become apparent that this representation by Moulton is almost certainly entirely false, and Moulton knew this the entire time, wasting a huge amount of time and effort of all concerned in a cavalier dishonest fashion: [13][14][15]
Moulton has either been unable or unwilling to learn or understand how and why Wikipedia uses the WP:V and WP:RS standards, and other rules and procedures.[16] He has complained about this extensively on WP and externally: [17][18][19] He has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of the rules, culture and ethics of Wikipedia, made assorted overt and veiled legal threats against it and its editors (in violation of WP:NPA). He has expressed the desire repeatedly to be able to manufacture unsourced "truths" for inclusion on Wikipedia, of which he personally is the sole and final arbiter (in violation of WP:NOR).
Evidence of disputed behavior
In the course of his discussions and edits, it is also clear that Moulton has violated a number of rules on Wikipedia:
Moulton knows the subject of this article well, and has confirmed this repeatedly.[20] [21] He was repeatedly cautioned about being in violation of WP:COI if he continued editing the article,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] but he ignored this and continued to edit it anyway, sometimes responding in a less than civil fashion:[31][32][33][34]
WP:3RR and WP:EW: This is a rough summary of the events transpiring when Moulton began editing Rosalind Picard (not all edits and incidents included):
- (Aug 22, 0:52) removal of sourced material:[35]
- (Aug 22, 12:02) insertion of new material, partially sourced: [36]
- (Aug 22, 13:16) reinsertion of new material: [37]
- (Aug 22, 16:36) Minor edits, inclusion of poorly described aside:[38]
- (Aug 22, 17:19) partial revert by Moulton[39]
- (Aug 22, 17:48) reversion by Moulton[40]
- (Aug 22 18:05) Warning on Moulton's talk page about not removing sourced material from or adding unsourced material to Rosalind Picard: [41]
- (Aug 23, 01:29) reinsertion/reversion by Moulton [42]
- (Aug 23, 3:02) Reversion by Moulton [43]
- (Aug 23 4:03) Reversion by Moulton [44]
- (Aug 23 4:04) Warning about 3RR on Moulton's homepage [45]
- (Aug 23 4:15) reversion by Moulton [46]
- (Aug 23 08:55) introduction of tortuous explanations by Moulton [47]
- (Aug 23 10:16) reversion by Moulton [48]
- (Aug 23 10:33) reversion by Moulton [49]
- (Aug 23 22:24) Moulton's violation of 3RR reported at Administrator's Noticeboard:[50] Aug 23 22:24
- (Aug 24 0:59) Moulton makes the claim the NYT is guilty of not verifying its claims [51]
- (Aug 24 01:26) reverted again by Moulton [52]
- (Aug 24 13:01) reversion by Moulton [53]
- (Aug 24 14:24) Warning for tendentiously editing talk page comments [54]
- (Aug 24 14:28) reversion of text by Moulton [55]
- (Aug 27 13:55) application of 9 dispute tags by Moulton [57]
- (Aug 27 20:26) removal of sourced material again by Moulton, and inclusion of non-consensus tortuous explanation: [58]
- (Aug 30 00:46) revert back to non-consensus version by Moulton, who again asserts that those appearing on the list did not sign the petition [59]
At 18:35, 24 August 2007, Moulton was blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks: [60] However, this did not end the stream of personal attacks by a long shot, as [61][62][63][64] demonstrates, for example, on August 30, 2007.
WP:POINT [69] (discussed at[70]) Also warned about WP:POINT at [71].
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Moulton was repeatedly counselled to calm down and not engage in edit warring and tendentious editing.
- User:Filll:[72][73][74][75] User:Filll even bent over backwards, calling Moulton by telephone and talking to him for hours to try to help him understand the rules of WP and what would be required to reach his editing goals:[76]
- User:Hrafn42: Attempted to explain the relevant policies, patiently explained the problems with Moutlon's edits and proposed a number of possible solutions.[77][78][79][80]
- User:THF: Offered to mediate.[81]
- User:Avb: Makes it clear to moulton, that his behaviour is unacceptable.[82]
- User:Kenosis: Tried to make moutlon aware of the fact that his behaviour is unproductive at best, creates an unpleasant atmosphere around the articles, and in is violation of several policies.[83][84][85]
- User:FeloniousMonk: Suggests that moulton step away from the articles and take a little time familiarising himself with wikipedia policies and guidlines, and warns him against disruptive and threatening behaviour.[86][87]
- User:Dave souza[88]
- User:Athaenara[89]
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
I have a number of items to introduce here, some of which have previously been published on Wikipedia, and some of which have not been previously published or disclosed anywhere.
Here is the first item...
Call for a Functional Social Contract
I would like to see the participants here craft a more functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide the conflicted parties. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, has proven to be needlessly aggravating, contentious, and interminable. I believe the Wikipedians engaged in this exercise would benefit from a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution.
A social contract is a written document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one faction over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus -- a consensus on the terms of engagement. In the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement, the interpersonal dynamics of a cast of characters embroiled in conflict typically devolves into some form of a liminal social drama.
Moulton 10:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Response from Kenneth Chang
Kenneth Chang is the NY Times reporter who wrote the story that launched the controversy. Yesterday I received this reply to my inquiry to him regarding his understanding of the first 103 scientists who signed the original statement in 2001...
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:14:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: kenchang@nytimes.com
To: bkort@media.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition (February 21, 2006)Through her assistant, Dr. Picard declined to be interviewed for the article. She was on sabbatical at the time, I believe, so it may have been logistics rather wishing not to expand on her reasons. All I can say is that she signed a petition agreeing with those two sentences.
Probably the best way of getting an answer to your questions is to ask her yourself.
She hasn't addressed evolution herself, except indirectly: Machines That Can Deny Their Maker
Personally, I would see the two sentences as anti-evolution, even independent of the title and the Discovery Institute.
Moulton 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment from Leon D'Souza
Leon D'Souza is a professional journalist who is a graduate of the Utah State University School of Journalism and Communications. He is currently with the Salt Lake City Tribune and has previously contributed to news coverage of the Creationism/ID debate in the state of Utah. He posted this comment about the Wikipedia controversy on my personal blog...
Barry:
Such insufferable insolence! Frankly, I'm shocked at the vitriolic and obdurate tone of some of these exchanges. I say this with no measure of exaggeration.
Our ill-tempered friend from New Zealand appears to have taken on the mantle of pundit, defending his reasoning with the frothy fervor of an evangelical Christian.
What troubles me is that he thinks nothing of besmirching the reputation of a respected intellectual on the basis of his personal contempt for her supposed beliefs. This is simply unacceptable and against an ethical code journalists hold sacrosanct.
It is – and ought to be – our purpose to report the unvarnished truth, not a demonstrable distortion that comes across as deliberately misleading, and consequently defamatory.
I do believe Professor Picard must distance herself from the Discovery Institute's political machinations and publicly rescind her endorsement of the offending text. But I also believe that even the brightest of scientific minds might be given to the occasional act of professional indiscretion.
We must rid ourselves of subjective judgment. Maliciousness and spite have no place in biographical journalism.
As an aside, I thought you might find this interesting. Note the contributing credits.
Moulton 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Republication Request from Mike Sweeney
Mike Sweeney is the Department Head at the Utah State University School of Journalism and Communications who is the senior faculty editor of their online newspaper, Hard News Cafe [HNC].
I received this request from Mike to reproduce an essay of mine as an Op-Ed piece on the Hard News Cafe...
Subject: RE: Wikipedia: A Case Study In Accuracy, Excellence, and Ethics in Online Media
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:47:30 -0600
From: "Mike Sweeney" <mike.sweeney@usu.edu>
To: "Barry Kort" <bkort@media.mit.edu>I would love to post this as an opinion piece on the HNC.
Any changes you want to make before I do? It appears that the word "of" has fallen out of the lead paragraph. ..Mike
Moulton 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment from Jim62sch
Here is another (unsolicited) comment on the issues, which I received in E-Mail from Jim62sch...
From: Jim <jim62sch@hotmail.com>
Date: Sep 1, 2007 12:24 PM
X-Originating-IP: [71.242.21.186]
X-Originating-Email: [ jim62sch@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: jim62sch@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: FYI...
To: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu>, Bob Stevens <hound9_3@yahoo.com>, Tim Makinson <grimm@actrix.co.nz>Barry, go take your fucking meds. Haldol might be good.
Jim
Moulton 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.