Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 10 September 2007 (→Next Steps: More issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

comments on Outside view by User:SheffieldSteel

Comments

  • I'm curious why you'd think those editors who are familiar with and respect Wikipedia's policies should be restricted by a "cooldown period" in instances when someone pushing an agenda shows up. Odd nature 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that a more serious measure should be taken. Numerous editors and administrators have already tried to counsel Moulton, and he has been dismissive. He presumes that he should take the role of mentor and dictate to Wikipedia how it should function. I do not believe this negative cycle will be broken without more drastic action.--Filll 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cooldown period is one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution techniques (one which has not, I believe, been tried) and which might be necessary, as I said, to allow the mentoring process time to bear fruit. That is not an instant process, and it does deserve a chance - assuming, as I said, that a mentor can be found who Moulton is prepared to accept and respect. If not, then as Filll says, more serious measures will surely be necessary. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indenting on comments is kind of confusing, so I removed one of your indents SS. Anyways, I think that Moulton has exhausted the patience of many contributors to this project. His intellect is certainly fine, but I completely disagree with his "dedication to science and truth." Anyone that hasn't got a clue about Evolution, obfuscates their belief in Intelligent Design, and posts guest blogs on notorious anti-Evolution blogs is hardly a supporter of science (and since science does not deal in truth, I'll ignore the second part of the descriptive). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moulton's primary characteristics appear to be an obsessive devotion to Picard's image (which he has demonstrated on other fora over a year before his involvement in the wikipedia article on the subject), a disinterest in researching WP:RSs to find material suitable for addition to articles, a ready willingness to make completely unsubstantiated (and frequently unfounded) claims and accusations, and a complete unwillingness to accept WP:CON. He shows little interest in editing articles unrelated to his WP:COI. I am therefore highly skeptical as to his potential value to the wikipedia community. Hrafn42 03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton content moved from Rfc page

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)[reply]

Comments by Moulton moved here from project page

From this edit:

Compounding this problem considerably has been the way in which User:Filll has represented himself to Moulton. Filll originally responded to Moulton's request for help in correcting inaccuracies in the biography of a colleague, Rosalind Picard, who had been purportedly libeled by an anonymous cabal of fanatic editors at Wikipedia who were fixated on the Creationism/ID controversy. Filll suggested that the burden was on Picard to supply published evidence to convince the Wikipedians that they might have unintentionally or inadvertently misportrayed her in their zeal to publicize the Creationism/ID controversy as widely as possible. The parallel biography of James Tour revealed that such express disclaimers as Tour gave were insufficient to convince the Wikipedians to tone down their rhetoric in the pages of a biography of a living person. Moulton 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by dave souza on Response by Moulton as of 04.26, 6 September

Moulton posted his response at 04.26, 6 September. In my opinion the statements go to the heart of the problem:

1. My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online journalism, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

Shows a failure to realise that Wikipedia is not journalism, and an impatience to impose real or imagined standards rather than trying to understand and comply with policy. Repeated efforts were made to fabricate unsourced and implausible scenarios of potential harm in a BLP, rejecting properly attributed information without attempting to provide a citation making that rejection in relation to the subject. See #Comments by Moulton moved here from project page above, and note that the "rhetoric" of "an anonymous cabal of fanatic editors" includes a descriptive phrase properly cited from the New York Times.

2. My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

The attitude is of a superior outsider, gathering material for a blog critical of Wikipedia rather than co-operating with the community.

3. My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are falling short of best practices.

The place for that is on the talk pages of the policies and guidelines that Moulton seems to have had difficulty in understanding.

In claiming to have inside knowledge about the "biography of a colleague" Moulton has presented lengthy portrayals at odds with published evidence, severely trying the good faith of other editors. .. dave souza, talk 08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "Wikipedia is not journalism."

Dave, your remark, "Wikipedia is not journalism," arrested me, so I put the phrase into Google to see where it leads. What turned up were only two hits, both on Wikipedia, one of which examines that view. (The other one just mentions it in passing.)

The relevant discussion amounts to a colloquy between User:Tsavage and User:JesseW,on the topic of "Countering systemic bias" in Wikipedia. The dialogue took place around the time of Thanksgiving, a little less than two years ago.

JesseW asks, What alternative method of achieving verifiability by any viewer (one of the primary goals of Wikipedia, and a critical check against the insertion of false information into the 'pedia) would you suggest?

And Tsavage answers....

NOR+NPOV+verifiability simply doesn't work, a good model on the way to something, but ultimately, not up to the task. In that case, what better model could there be for assembling a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? The only other existing approach that even suggests itself is a journalistic one, by Wikipedia's definition: "a discipline of collecting, verifying, analyzing and presenting information".

Tsavage goes on to say, "Wikipedia currently functions much more like a journalistic endeavour than an academic one (the vast majority of articles do not have references and have not gone through any formal verification process)."

I share the above view of Tsavage.

On the other hand, if (as you say) Wikipedia is not journalism, then what is it?

Moulton 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two years is a long time in Wikipedia, and while there's a long way to go there's also been an increasing emphasis on attributing information. Two points about that suggested journalistic approach – Wikipedia:No original research means that we don't collect or analyse information to present facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, or arguments that haven't already been published. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not also covers the point, noting "Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source......" That page also briefly says what WP is at the top, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people". That's expanded at Wikipedia:About. Note the community. If you want to work productively in a community, it's a bad idea to start by insulting both the motives and methods of people already contributing to the work, and by demanding that people follow your rules rather than trying to understand and follow the community rules. ... dave souza, talk 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My rules? I don't have any rules, Dave. I don't even believe in rule-governed systems, except for games like Chess, Checkers, or Go. I believe in functional protocols that are intelligently designed to foster the objectives of an enterprise. I'm still mystified as to what the objectives of the Wikipedia enterprise really are. I am convinced the objectives are not journalistic excellence. But what are the objectives? Surely the objectives are not to craft false, defamatory, and insulting biographies of living people, whom the would-be biographers have never met. Moulton 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgement, I will chime in. Moulton was advised by me by phone, and by email that Wikipedia is not some sort of journal or newspaper, and it is not practicing journalism.

I sometimes step over the bounds a bit by trying to aggressively generate RS and V sources. However, as was remarked often to Moulton verbally and in written communications, personal conversations, personal emails, personal impressions and personal research are NOT, and I have to emphasize NOT, allowed on Wikipedia.

This might seem hard to fathom at first, but that is the way it is. Lecturing people about how they have to change all the rules of an organization with hundreds of thousands of members that has been functioning just fine for 6+ years and has produced several million articles in hundreds of languages seems a bit pretentious, when a person does not even understand the thing they are criticizing. Moulton shows up, decides our project and its rules are crap because he is far smarter, does not even understand the rules or the system or the project, and proceeds to lecture us and fight with us. Why are Moulton's personal rules worth more than several hundred thousand other editor's rules? What makes Moulton so special, just because he claims he is? I see no evidence that he is worthy of being proclaimed dictator just because he has some grey in his beard. Some of the editors here are far more illustrious in their fields, or even in his field, with more degrees from more prestigious institutions. Some of them are older and have more experience. Some of them have much more expertise than he does, in every field in which he deems to take on the mantle of "eminent grise" lecturing us poor uneducated backwards masses. Moulton, your image of your fellow editors is wrong. Very wrong. And you have been told this and told this. And you continue to cling to your old biases.

By their fruits ye shall know them. And we know Moulton by his fruits. He revealed himself to be quite different than what he claimed. So we know what to think of him now.

Even though Moulton has been told more than 10 times previously that Wikipedia is NOT journalism, he still is surprised to have someone tell him this? My goodness. I do not know what to think. But I notice that he does not seem to learn very quickly, and seems very badly to want to claim he is right, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Not useful traits for editing an online, collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia.--Filll 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, that's why I take exception to your insertion into these pages of the results of your own WP:OR on the lives, character, or private beliefs of living persons, including Picard, Tour, and occasional editors like me. I'm also an identifiable living person, and I object to the publication of false and defamatory characterizations based on your personal research, your personal interpretation of our correspondence, and your personal conclusions about my thoughts, beliefs, desires, or intentions.
Well, you've got to accept that us grey (or, let's face it, white) beards can be pretty slow learners, though equally Moulton has to accept the importance of cooperation and assume good faith. A problem with the catchphrases and buzzwords used by creationists / ID proponents is that they can be innocently used by the uninitiated, so the jury must remain out on whatever his opinions actually are, in my opinion. .. dave souza, talk 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one finds slow learners among people with all colors of hair. Of course it is possible that Moulton's comments have been misinterpreted, however, I do find the other interpretation compelling, having the information in hand that I do. What I object to is being lied to, especially when I am attempting to go out of my way to do someone a favor.--Filll 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear on how to interpret a comment (whether it's a comment of mine in E-Mail, a comment of Tour's in the NY Times, or a null comment from Picard), the best practice, to my mind, is to ask the person if your proposed interpretation is accurate. I am frankly appalled at the miasma of misinterpretations and patently false interpretations that have been circulating in more pages than I can keep track of. Moulton 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from a person who takes private emails and reprints them here. of course, we don't know how you might have "edited" what was said. You deserve no good faith, and frankly, you ought to be out of the project. But that's not my decision to make. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy enough to resolve. I propose that Filll and I jointly publish our E-Mail correspondence, to put to rest any uncertainty regarding what's in them, or any uncertainty regarding Filll's claims of what's in them. For example, he claims I "lied" to him. Yet he cannot exhibit the evidence for that claim, because the evidence is based on his interpretation of something (and I frankly dunno what) that's in the E-Mail correspondence. OK. Let us jointly publish the E-Mails and examine them (with a skeptical eye) to see what the evidence really shows. How about it, Filll? Are you prepared to back up your claim with evidence and reasoning, explaining your proposed interpretation? Moulton 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one more thing I overlooked. Orangemarlin writes, "you ought to be out of the project." What project? I'm not in any project. What are you talking about? Moulton 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next Steps

Since Moulton has rejected the community's input [2], continues to disrupt article talk pages, and can't be bothered to learn, understand and follow Wikipedia's content policies and behavioral guidelines, preferring his own notions and expecting others to do as well, I think it's safe to declare him a chronically disruptive editor and suggest we follow the steps at WP:DE and seek a topic ban or a community ban. Odd nature 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this course of action:

  1. Odd nature 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Filll 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ornis (t) 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. dave souza, talk 11:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hrafn42 12:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

An earlier example in the thread[3] presents an extended ramble looking like typical creationist arguments dressed up in scientific sounding terms, ignoring repeated requests to provide citations and looking very like trolling, while this typifies an attitude of superiority in rejecting the policies and guidelines he's failed to understand "over the past few days". ... dave souza, talk 11:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Please cast your vote for one or more of these expressions of attitude:

I, ___________________, would
[ ] view with alarm
[ ] have disdain for
[ ] hate to see
a continuation of the drama circumscribed by this RfC.

Please cast your vote for exactly one of these expressions of approval/disapproval:

I, ___________________,
[ ] approve of
[ ] disapprove of
the characterization of individuals identified in this RfC.

Moulton 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As as has been said before, perhaps Moulton should learn what WP is and how things are done here first before attempting to lecture us, as the example above demonstrates.--Filll 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me, as a naive student, ask a question of our esteemed drama coach, Professor Filll...
Is it customary, in Wikipedia, for actors in a staged drama, to take rehearsal lines from an off-stage rehearsal room, and utter them onstage, before a live audience while wearing the costume of another actor?
Moulton 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about sock puppets or meat puppets, this is forbidden. Anyone found to be doing this is subject to banning/blocking.--Filll 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll dear soul, you don't actually expect Moulton's comments to actually have some relevance to Wikipedia rules or procedures do you? That would be pushing optimism too far. What Moulton appears to be doing is going off on one of his patented tangents, and leaving the Wikipedia community far behind, and completely in the dark. What does he mean? I don't have a clue. Do I care? Of course not, as the chance of it having any relevance to anything actually going on in Wikipedia is essentially zero. Hrafn42 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filll, I am not talking about sock puppets or meat puppets. I am talking about another player -- an adversary whose identity is not in dispute -- inserting unapproved content into the Response section and then gratuitously affixing a mark of approval, as if I had signed off on the inserted material. Moulton 13:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton: The document in question was not "an off-stage rehearsal room" -- it was a temporary document that Filll created on his own userspace to draft the RfC. When you posted a response there, after the RfC had begun, ConfuciusOrnis assumed that you had gotten confused as to where the RfC was taking place (an impression that I likewise shared), and attempted to correct this by reposting your response to the correct page and redirecting the draft document to the RfC page. If you had simply prepared your response in your own userspace, you could have saved yourself all this bother. In any case, this is all ancient history, as all traces of that original posting have long since been removed (for being unresponsive to the matter at hand, and in violation of WP privacy rules). Hrafn42 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the other actors speak for themselves about what they believed (or assumed or imagined) I was doing in Filll's rehearsal area in his private userspace.
Filll set up a drama and personally invited me to participate. I went to his rehearsal room and began improvising my soliloquy in front of the other cast of characters, out of the public limelight. But before I was finished, another actor rushed excerpts of my rehearsal to the live stage and made it appear that it was me onstage, reciting that unpolished and unfinished soliloquy before a live audience, and taking a bow. The worst part of it was the fabrication of my signature in the approval section at the end of the scene. I had not yet signed off at the bottom, as I hadn't even finished crafting the first rehearsal draft of it back in Filll's now-vanished rehearsal room.
As I'm sure many Wikipedians are aware, thespians often try out provocative and over-the-top material in rehearsal, as well as material that ultimately bombs in live performance. Performance art is enlivened by such experimentation in the rehearsal stages of a dramatic work. But once the cast of characters goes onstage for their public performance before a live audience, it is customary to let each actor perform his or her designated role. It confuses the audience when one actor substitutes for another and plays both protagonist and antagonist in the same presentation.
I may not be a regular viewer of the TNT cable channel, but I know drama, too. While I appreciated Filll's invitation to play a central role in his BBQ, I am troubled by the confusion over who is entitled to play the role of Moulton here. Is Moulton's role supposed to be played by the actor who normally plays Moulton on the Internet? Or is Moulton's role being played by substitute actors and understudies who are wearing multiple costumes in this remarkable drama?
Moulton 15:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Moulton, your own material certainly had an impact. You 'performed' your 'material', the 'critical reviews' are in, and the consensus is that your 'show' is due for an early closure (as is this grossly overstretched analogy). Incidentally, you are not helping your case by portraying this RfC as a "staged drama", as opposed to a serious attempt to get you to mend your ways. Hrafn42 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution. Moulton may be playing the clown, but if there's any truth in his assertions of credentials and position, it's quite possible that he's trying to document the reaction of the Wikipedia community to a determined troll on a sensitive subject. .. dave souza, talk 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what role I'm expected to be playing here (in the RfC proper, or in these discussion pages attached to it). It's Filll's show. If he wants to cast me in the role of the Christ figure, who the hell am I to deny him (or anyone else) the ecstasy of their religious fervor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulton (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, but the community's reaction could be considered a reasonable reaction to his extreme and highly disruptive method of presentation. Even if what a troll has to say has some germ of truth hidden inside it, is it unreasonable for a community to reject the troll's input on the basis of the obvious & excessive disruption, rather than the non-obvious possibility that there might be something worthwhile hidden in there? In any case, I would consider the possibility of your hypothesis to be remote, as Moulton has a long-established pattern of obsession on the issue of Picard's involvement in the 'Dissent', predating his involvement on the wikipedia article by more than a year. Crankish notions are by no means unknown among academics, even among otherwise-respectable ones. Hrafn42 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fascinating how eager some observers are to attach stigmatic labels to individuals, as if that curious practice were somehow a beloved feature of the culture here. But since you bring up "crankish notions," you might enjoy this view on that angle of attack: The Parable of the Meat Grinder and the Idea Processor. Moulton 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I didn't say you were a crank (though the possibility exists that I might think it), I was merely pointing out that your "credentials and position" (which, contra Dave, I know to be true) does not bar you from being a crank on this point. Far more prominent academics than yourself have proven to be monumental cranks at times. Hrafn42 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you building a monument here?  :) Moulton 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless it's one to pointless and irrelevant tangents. Hrafn42 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecuted

Once again, Moulton shows no contrition and persists with the persecution complex, based on his comments here. We won't even go into canvassing individuals for support. This is tiresome. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton&oldid=156976971"