Welcome!
Hello Moulton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! bd2412 T 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rosalind Picard. Thank you. Hrafn42 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rosalind Picard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ornis ( t) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)
If you have a US or Canadian phone number I will call you. Email it to me and let me know.-- Filll 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at talk:Rosalind Picard. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ornis ( t) 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Joshua, would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding alleged violations of WP:BLP? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks. Moulton 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I can help you out with that since having reviewed the issue, I completely agree with Hrafn42 and Guettarda and disagree with both your position and actions there. My advice is take some time to better learn how Wikipedia actually handles these issues then revisit the articles; I think you'll find then your concern is unwarranted. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge. | ” |
Please make yourself familiar with WP:POINT and avoid stunts like this again [1] [2]. Odd nature 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Having had a look at your concerns, I've added a section Talk:Rosalind Picard#Anti-evolution petition controversy redrafted. Feel free to comment. Please realise that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and can only reflect published information that can be verified from reliable sources. .. dave souza, talk 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rosalind Picard, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Hrafn42 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change talk page headers in a situation where there's a continuing argument, it would be best in this particular case to discuss the proposal first and seek consensus to avoid any suggestion of disruptive editing. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I learned last night that well over a year ago (June 29, 2006), Picard took the initiative to edit her own bio page to excise the false characterization of "anti-evolution" ...
21:35, June 29, 2006 18.85.10.17 ("anti-evol" is POV of the writer. the organizers of the petition support many aspects of evolution such as microevolution so to label it anti-evolution is an attempt to sell more newspapers)
12 hours ago, I passed that obscure bit of intelligence along to User:Filll in E-Mail, as evidence both to support the objection that the petition was not accurately characterized as anti-evolution, and to satisfy him that Picard was on record (albeit semi-anonymously) as taking exception to that particular detail.
See also this similar edit from six months ago (which I also told User:Filll about) ...
22:19, February 4, 2007 18.85.10.10 (the deleted material has nothing to do with the person in the entry)
It's illuminating to see what another editor has now done with that intelligence. The bureaucratic machinations utterly fascinate me, notwithstanding WP:BURO...
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.
Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community.
Bureaucratic rules may not be the purpose of Wikipedia, but one would be hard pressed to find a more transparent example of a rule-driven system gone into metastasis.
Moulton 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this fighting with other editors seems like fun to you or not. I am starting to think that it does. However, I am asking you to just relax and cool it for a few days here. Let's allow the facts to unfold. Then we will have more information on which to base any changes to the article.
This is what I have been seeking now for a week, and why I stopped basically editing the article. When you get in these mini-edit wars, you make more cruft for others to have to read through, and you manufacture ill-will, as I fear you already have in some quarters.
I realize you are quite QUITE fervent about this, and have your own views about what Wikipedia is and should be and how it should be run and what rules it should have. However, your thoughts are just those; your own. Your ideas on how Wikipedia should run and what rules it should follow are not consistent with the way Wikipedia really runs, whether that is correct or incorrect.
Now if you want to change the Wikipedia culture and rules, if that is your true goal, you will not do it by the path you are taking. Become an experienced member. Learn a bit about the rules and systems in place. And the mechanisms for changing the culture. And then introduce your suggestions to the venues where they might do some good.
I have tried to shepherd you through this process. I have gone above and beyond what anyone would normally expect. I have your and Picard's and MIT's and the science community's best interests in mind here. I am not trying to pillory Picard. I am trying to gather more information so we can address all concerns. A win-win solution. Isn't that optimal? Isn't that reasonable?
I told you this a week ago. And I am telling you the same thing now. Let's work together, not at cross-purposes. Do not go out of your way to make the situation worse. Please.-- Filll 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We have different views on the world, that is for sure...And you are already taking on the DI directly. You are naive to think that the DI is not here editing the article right alongside you.-- Filll 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
People can hold partisan personal views and still maintain professional standards of ethics when wearing the hat of a Wikipedia editor. Steve appreciates the difference between opinion and fact, and seems conscientious about maintaining a neutral stance when the article requires facts. I agree with him that the biography of a living person is not the place to present opposing views of the controversy that had previously dominated the page.
To my mind, a number of people conducted themselves in an honorable and respectable manner, and worked hard to achieve the overarching goal of crafting an accurate portrayal of the subject in a manner suitable for an encyclopedia. I didn't always agree with some of the maneuvers, but I thought Dave, Steve, and Filll were among those who did their level best to achieve a respectable outcome meeting reasonable standards for journalistic excellence.
Moulton 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia really just has to rely on using reliable sources.
If NYT says something, then we report NYT says so.
We can't read between lines, or add disclaimers. I appreciate you trying to paint Picard in a good light, but that simply isn't what wikipedia is for.
It's on the record she signed a petition that is on the record as being used in a very anti-evolution (education) way.-- ZayZayEM 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton-- Filll 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Off-wiki harassment
Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
(outdent) Moulton, your response was a pasting of emails and articles. Please view other Rfc's and the Rfc instruction page for how to respond. You need to address the issues raised in the Statement of the dispute and subsections of that, not argue a content dispute. This is not an article Rfc, this is a User conduct dispute, and even if it were an article dispute, emails are not reliable sources for anything. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I told you this before, in the strongest possible terms in a private email. What is wrong with you? You were warned. You did not understand that? You did not absorb that information? You responded back to my warning email about this topic. You do not seem to learn. I am outraged at this egregious and careless behavior, frankly.-- Filll 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to help you. I tried to advise you. You betrayed this trust in multiple ways. And this is only compounding the problem. It is too bad this is not a legal proceeding. I think you would be a good candidate for 2 or 3 weeks worth of deposition, under oath.-- Filll 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, here is what I find on RfCs for Users...
It occurs to me that I am entitled to demonstrate evidence that an RfC may have been initiated (or exploited by some) to harass or subdue another editor. There is no shortage of evidence that many of my critics have sought to subdue me. And there is striking (and stricken) evidence that some of my critics have sought to harass me, as well.
It occurs to me that if some adversarial editors wish to bring close scrutiny on me, they must be prepared to have that same close scrutiny applied to them.
I have made a good faith effort to respond in a timely, accurate, and professional manner, to what the above headline of this section bids me to do:
I went to that page, found the Response section, and posted my response there, as requested.
Now Ornis is saying not to post my response there, but here.
Color me confused.
Moulton 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Like most other things on Wikipedia, this is something else you do not seem to be able to understand. However, I am confident that with persistence, you will see your way through to the correct page, by actually following the link that was posted above for you to follow. I am not sure why this is a difficult task for you, but I am seeing that it is. And after lecturing us for 2 weeks about how inadequate and incompetent we were in various ways too...-- Filll 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) An example may help: take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon. See how he responded? That's how to respond to an Rfc. Regarding all that content dispute, the Rfc is not the place to take that argument. It is a user conduct Rfc, and not the place for content disputes. Read the issues, address them - and set the content dispute aside for now. This is about your conduct, your behavior, do you understand that? So far in this Rfc you have mocked other editors in their sections, pasted emails with private information (for which you could be banned from Wikipedia), and pasted in a blog article which had NOTHING to do with your conduct or behavior. You have added fact templates to the statement of the dispute section, which is NOT yours to edit, and which is inappropriate anyway as those are for articles - and btw ignoring that many of the assertions you tagged with fact, if not all, had corresponding diffs linked. You have failed utterly to modify your behavior, or even try to address the concerns raised at the Rfc. Now you're nattering on about "Soviet Psychology" and a "cabal of editors" - are you trying to get site banned? Because if you are, you're doing an awfully good job. Now take the advice Dave and I have given you, and address the issues raised at the Rfc. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of WikiCulture, someone posting as Fuckin Broc left a "notable" comment on my personal blog. He has no personal profile, but he posted his remarks from cpe-65-189-129-140.columbus.res.rr.com [65.189.129.140]. A Google search on 65.189.129.140 comes up with just two entries, both from Wikipedia. It turns out that 65.189.129.140 is "indefinitely blocked" on Wikipedia. That's anecdotal data of something but I dunno what. Moulton 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that on the Rosalind Picard case you've repeatedly used the word "libel" and variants thereof. Legal threats are never acceptable. Please see WP:LEGAL for further information. JoshuaZ 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that my position over at your RfC is a condemnation of some behavior on Wikipedia you happen to have run afoul of, but it's also not an endorsement of your actions. While I can sympathize with your issue, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the goals of Wikipedia. It is not journalism. Wikipedia only uses sources, rather than original research, for good reason.
I think we all are aware that our sources aren't always going to be right, but that's what we have to work with. People come here with some bizarre claims, and there has to be a way for the rest of us to verify them. Expecting journalistic work here just isn't realistic, as it would create more problems than it would solve.
I realize that you have run afoul of some particularly difficult editors, but you have gone about your dissent in a way that will easily end with you being banned. They're right about policy, even if a few of them tend to be dicks about it at times (that's not unique to Wikipedia, or even the internet, though).
It is still quite possible to work with difficult editors, but you have to really try to do so, through doing your best to follow all of the Five Pillars. Harping on Wikipedia's flaws isn't going to change anything at this point. I recommend creating a response over at your RfC, but keep it as concise as possible, stick to addressing the accusations against you, and be willing to accept your mistakes.
Regarding your problems with the Rosalind Picard article, I recommend you avoid the article for a while, in order to cool off and consider what you think should be done, and even if/when you return to it, you should avoid editing the article directly. You are clearly passionate about the subject, and the perceived conflict of interest will cause problems for you. Decide what you really want out of Wikipedia and the article; if you can't accept the flaws (at least for now), this project just may not be for you.
I'm willing to help you, but you have to realize that the way you've gone about things up until now has been counter-productive. Sxeptomaniac 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I think that the creationist controversy is often far more heated than scientific discussions because it's more of a socio-political dispute. Most of the group you find yourself in conflict with seem to feel that the intelligent design side is a threat that must be fought. Whether or not it needs to be fought is their concern, but I just think they are turning articles they are involved with into a battleground, which is clearly not appropriate.
It comes back to the reason I posted my comment in your RfC about the group you find yourself in conflict with. I actually was editing on Wikipedia over a year before running into a couple of them over at the Noah's Ark article. That's why I highly recommend getting to see how things are in other areas of the site, because those guys tend to stick to a pretty narrow range of topics. I suspect this whole issue with their behavior will come to a head eventually, but it will probably still be a while. Sxeptomaniac 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a group of editors involving Filll and some of his associates use bullying and harassment as a "tool" in their editing of Wikipedia, which sadly they seem to see as a battleground more than a fun and informative encyclopaedia project. I agree that these editors are often incivil, aggressive, hostile and adversarial. But please don't take my comments as a personal endorsement of you or your position- it's rather an endorsement of Sxeptomaniac's statement, which was not entirely favourable towards you either. Badgerpatrol 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude at times can be perceived as condescending at times (c.f this edit summary [8]).
This perception (whether intended or not) is probably partly responsible for your increasingly icy reception at wikipedia.-- ZayZayEM 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still looking for an appropriate clinical expression to characterize the "attitude" you allude to. One adjective that comes to mind is "disdainful attitude". The objectionable practice that arises from such a "disdainful attitude" is the unbecoming practice of lambasting, stigmatizing, or demonizing any individual whose role in this liminal social drama our vocal critics find at odds with their own preferred objective in this fascinating drama. Moulton 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am perplexed by the existence of 170 articles on Wikipedia, all sponsored by thirteen signatories of the Intelligent Design Project, 157 of which articles are assessed as of no importance. These articles primarily reprint the essential PR messages of a partisan/theological public interest lobby, including such lovingly crafted pamphlets as Intelligent Design Movement, Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity, Fine-tuned Universe, Intelligent Designer, Theistic Realism, and Teach the Controversy. Don't the promoters of those synthetic ideas have their own webhost to publish their own soap? Moulton 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you have even claimed this indicates to all and sundry that you do not know what you are talking about. Are you only good for giving advice and issuing assorted fatwahs, or can you take advice as well? If you are not too hide-bound yet to take some advice, you might consider taking some sometime. How many warnings will it take? Or do people have to get really rough with you? Because I hate to say it, but you are heading for trouble. Not a threat, just some friendly advice, and a word to the wise. Everything I told you so far has come true, and this will be no exception. So take it from me...keep pushing it, and you will get your "reward".-- Filll 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend the WP:TIGER essay as a good explanation for the existence of the articles, Moulton. The scientific validity of a view isn't what we use to determine if it should be included. Instead, we look at whether it's significant. The Intelligent Design movement is culturally and historically significant, so we should do our best to document beliefs and incidents relevant to it, along with significant criticisms. Sxeptomaniac 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither was Stanislaw Ulam, John von Neumann, or Douglas Hofstadter. Yet they all had something valuable to say on the points expressed in the 32-word statement. Moulton 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>The bottom line is, WP is under no obligation to accommodate the mental difficulties, idiosyncracies and shortcomings of all those who get accounts here.-- Filll 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Since it appears as though you do not wish to take the collective advice from the editors on your RFC, what would actually have to happen in order for you to be satisfied with this whole process and for you to begin to edit in a constructive manner? Baegis 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.
What you have from that history page is that Picard has no objection to this version...
Controversial Petition Signer
Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Dissent From Darwin Petition (see page 6 of the petition for her signature). This petition has received criticism since although all of the signers hold doctorates in science and engineering disciplines, only 154 of the 514 signers have biological science backgrounds.
Moulton 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My evidence is her own personal communication to me, at which time she directed me where to look for her edits from the 18.85.10 subnetwork associated with the VPN tunnel for the Media Lab. What is the "ID" message you allude to? I am not familiar with the "ID" message as I have never heard anyone present, describe, or argue for such a message. How would I (or anyone else) have knowledge of who she may have contacted? Why do you discount the best evidence you have regarding the misrepresentations on her bio page, which is the note she left for the editors of that page, pointing out the errors to which she took exception.
Moulton
19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It is unbecoming for Wikipedia to eschew the goal of achieving reasonable standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Decline reason:
You have shown no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Yamla 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Are you saying that Wikipedia has no policy or guideline for achieving a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media? Moulton 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You were warned about this at least 20 or 30 times. And I predicted it, if you will recall, if you did not mend your ways. I told you to pay attention to my predictions before, and you aggressively dismissed my warnings and predictions, seeming to display an arrogant attitude. This did not help, to be honest. Sorry. However, you had the benefit of much much more community hand-holding and attention than we would normally lavish on someone like yourself with your kinds of agendas.-- Filll 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If I had been present in the time of Pope Urban's Inquisition, I'd like to think I would have stood up for Galileo, even though all the reliable sources kept assuring the Pope that the Sun went around the Earth.
If I had been there at the trial of Socrates, I'd like to think I would have stood up for the principle of skeptical examination of the evidence, principles of ethics, and critical thinking.
Moulton 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect again.-- Filll 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to quixotic quests, perhaps none is more intractable than nudging a hopelessly dysfunctional system in the Bokononic direction of enlightenment.
Dave Souza had reminded me of Augustine, who is notable for having introduced the term "Original Sin" into the conversation. Of course, being a systems scientist rather than a theologian, I'm more inclined to analyze systemic errors rather than reckon anything as mortifying as "Original Sin." Still, it occurred to me that Augustine might have been on to something, so I took a closer look at what he was blathering on about with all of that godspeak.
Turns out a few of those pioneering oligarchs (e.g. Solon and Hammurabi, among others) had introduced a tragic logic error into their calculus. Rather than call it "Original Sin," I'd rather call it "Hammurabi's Original Logic Error" or "Humankind's Original Logic Error." Either way, the acronym comes out HOLE, so that one can smile and say that those who embrace their flawed paradigm have a HOLE in their head.
But I digress. It's difficult to do peer-reviewed original research in the field of Neuro-Mathematical Theology, so one is obliged to follow the lead of Umberto Eco. Eco said, "Whereof we cannot make a theory, we must tell a story instead." And I say, even if we can make a theory, we damn well better present it as a story anyway, since theory tends to make most people's eyes glaze over. Alas, I suck at storycraft, which is why I like to hang out around journalists. Mebbe some of their gift will rub off on me someday.
Meanwhile, I struggle with a compromise somewhere between scientific essay writing and amateurish comic opera. I figure it can only get better, cuz it can't get much worse.
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down Barsoom Tork is my name, and I rode on the paintball train, Til so much rivalry came and tore up the tracks again. In the fall of skandalon, we were rollin, just trollin for bait. I took the train to Wiki, that hell, it was a time I remember, oh so well. The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing, The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'. They went Na, Na, na, na, na, na, Blah, blah, buh blah, Buh blah blah, blah blah Back with Dave at Epiphany, and one day he said to me, "Moulton, quick, come see, a-there goes Filll on a spree!" Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if Hrafn's no good. Just take what ya need and efface the rest, But they should never have wiped out the very best. The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing, The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'. They went Na, Na, na, na, na, na, Blah, blah, buh blah, Buh blah blah, blah blah Like my father before me, I'm a working man, And like ZayZay before me, I took a rebel stand. Well, he was just pissed off, proud and brave, But paintball laid him in his grave, I swear by the verse below my feet, You can't raise the Torkel back up when its in defeat. The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing, The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'. They went Na, Na, na, na, na, na, Blah, blah, buh blah, Buh blah blah, blah blah CopyClef 2007 Joan Baez and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Welcome!
Hello Moulton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! bd2412 T 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rosalind Picard. Thank you. Hrafn42 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rosalind Picard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ornis ( t) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)
If you have a US or Canadian phone number I will call you. Email it to me and let me know.-- Filll 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at talk:Rosalind Picard. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ornis ( t) 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Joshua, would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding alleged violations of WP:BLP? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks. Moulton 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I can help you out with that since having reviewed the issue, I completely agree with Hrafn42 and Guettarda and disagree with both your position and actions there. My advice is take some time to better learn how Wikipedia actually handles these issues then revisit the articles; I think you'll find then your concern is unwarranted. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge. | ” |
Please make yourself familiar with WP:POINT and avoid stunts like this again [1] [2]. Odd nature 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Having had a look at your concerns, I've added a section Talk:Rosalind Picard#Anti-evolution petition controversy redrafted. Feel free to comment. Please realise that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and can only reflect published information that can be verified from reliable sources. .. dave souza, talk 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rosalind Picard, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Hrafn42 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change talk page headers in a situation where there's a continuing argument, it would be best in this particular case to discuss the proposal first and seek consensus to avoid any suggestion of disruptive editing. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I learned last night that well over a year ago (June 29, 2006), Picard took the initiative to edit her own bio page to excise the false characterization of "anti-evolution" ...
21:35, June 29, 2006 18.85.10.17 ("anti-evol" is POV of the writer. the organizers of the petition support many aspects of evolution such as microevolution so to label it anti-evolution is an attempt to sell more newspapers)
12 hours ago, I passed that obscure bit of intelligence along to User:Filll in E-Mail, as evidence both to support the objection that the petition was not accurately characterized as anti-evolution, and to satisfy him that Picard was on record (albeit semi-anonymously) as taking exception to that particular detail.
See also this similar edit from six months ago (which I also told User:Filll about) ...
22:19, February 4, 2007 18.85.10.10 (the deleted material has nothing to do with the person in the entry)
It's illuminating to see what another editor has now done with that intelligence. The bureaucratic machinations utterly fascinate me, notwithstanding WP:BURO...
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.
Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community.
Bureaucratic rules may not be the purpose of Wikipedia, but one would be hard pressed to find a more transparent example of a rule-driven system gone into metastasis.
Moulton 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this fighting with other editors seems like fun to you or not. I am starting to think that it does. However, I am asking you to just relax and cool it for a few days here. Let's allow the facts to unfold. Then we will have more information on which to base any changes to the article.
This is what I have been seeking now for a week, and why I stopped basically editing the article. When you get in these mini-edit wars, you make more cruft for others to have to read through, and you manufacture ill-will, as I fear you already have in some quarters.
I realize you are quite QUITE fervent about this, and have your own views about what Wikipedia is and should be and how it should be run and what rules it should have. However, your thoughts are just those; your own. Your ideas on how Wikipedia should run and what rules it should follow are not consistent with the way Wikipedia really runs, whether that is correct or incorrect.
Now if you want to change the Wikipedia culture and rules, if that is your true goal, you will not do it by the path you are taking. Become an experienced member. Learn a bit about the rules and systems in place. And the mechanisms for changing the culture. And then introduce your suggestions to the venues where they might do some good.
I have tried to shepherd you through this process. I have gone above and beyond what anyone would normally expect. I have your and Picard's and MIT's and the science community's best interests in mind here. I am not trying to pillory Picard. I am trying to gather more information so we can address all concerns. A win-win solution. Isn't that optimal? Isn't that reasonable?
I told you this a week ago. And I am telling you the same thing now. Let's work together, not at cross-purposes. Do not go out of your way to make the situation worse. Please.-- Filll 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We have different views on the world, that is for sure...And you are already taking on the DI directly. You are naive to think that the DI is not here editing the article right alongside you.-- Filll 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
People can hold partisan personal views and still maintain professional standards of ethics when wearing the hat of a Wikipedia editor. Steve appreciates the difference between opinion and fact, and seems conscientious about maintaining a neutral stance when the article requires facts. I agree with him that the biography of a living person is not the place to present opposing views of the controversy that had previously dominated the page.
To my mind, a number of people conducted themselves in an honorable and respectable manner, and worked hard to achieve the overarching goal of crafting an accurate portrayal of the subject in a manner suitable for an encyclopedia. I didn't always agree with some of the maneuvers, but I thought Dave, Steve, and Filll were among those who did their level best to achieve a respectable outcome meeting reasonable standards for journalistic excellence.
Moulton 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia really just has to rely on using reliable sources.
If NYT says something, then we report NYT says so.
We can't read between lines, or add disclaimers. I appreciate you trying to paint Picard in a good light, but that simply isn't what wikipedia is for.
It's on the record she signed a petition that is on the record as being used in a very anti-evolution (education) way.-- ZayZayEM 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton-- Filll 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Off-wiki harassment
Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
(outdent) Moulton, your response was a pasting of emails and articles. Please view other Rfc's and the Rfc instruction page for how to respond. You need to address the issues raised in the Statement of the dispute and subsections of that, not argue a content dispute. This is not an article Rfc, this is a User conduct dispute, and even if it were an article dispute, emails are not reliable sources for anything. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I told you this before, in the strongest possible terms in a private email. What is wrong with you? You were warned. You did not understand that? You did not absorb that information? You responded back to my warning email about this topic. You do not seem to learn. I am outraged at this egregious and careless behavior, frankly.-- Filll 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to help you. I tried to advise you. You betrayed this trust in multiple ways. And this is only compounding the problem. It is too bad this is not a legal proceeding. I think you would be a good candidate for 2 or 3 weeks worth of deposition, under oath.-- Filll 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, here is what I find on RfCs for Users...
It occurs to me that I am entitled to demonstrate evidence that an RfC may have been initiated (or exploited by some) to harass or subdue another editor. There is no shortage of evidence that many of my critics have sought to subdue me. And there is striking (and stricken) evidence that some of my critics have sought to harass me, as well.
It occurs to me that if some adversarial editors wish to bring close scrutiny on me, they must be prepared to have that same close scrutiny applied to them.
I have made a good faith effort to respond in a timely, accurate, and professional manner, to what the above headline of this section bids me to do:
I went to that page, found the Response section, and posted my response there, as requested.
Now Ornis is saying not to post my response there, but here.
Color me confused.
Moulton 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Like most other things on Wikipedia, this is something else you do not seem to be able to understand. However, I am confident that with persistence, you will see your way through to the correct page, by actually following the link that was posted above for you to follow. I am not sure why this is a difficult task for you, but I am seeing that it is. And after lecturing us for 2 weeks about how inadequate and incompetent we were in various ways too...-- Filll 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) An example may help: take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon. See how he responded? That's how to respond to an Rfc. Regarding all that content dispute, the Rfc is not the place to take that argument. It is a user conduct Rfc, and not the place for content disputes. Read the issues, address them - and set the content dispute aside for now. This is about your conduct, your behavior, do you understand that? So far in this Rfc you have mocked other editors in their sections, pasted emails with private information (for which you could be banned from Wikipedia), and pasted in a blog article which had NOTHING to do with your conduct or behavior. You have added fact templates to the statement of the dispute section, which is NOT yours to edit, and which is inappropriate anyway as those are for articles - and btw ignoring that many of the assertions you tagged with fact, if not all, had corresponding diffs linked. You have failed utterly to modify your behavior, or even try to address the concerns raised at the Rfc. Now you're nattering on about "Soviet Psychology" and a "cabal of editors" - are you trying to get site banned? Because if you are, you're doing an awfully good job. Now take the advice Dave and I have given you, and address the issues raised at the Rfc. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of WikiCulture, someone posting as Fuckin Broc left a "notable" comment on my personal blog. He has no personal profile, but he posted his remarks from cpe-65-189-129-140.columbus.res.rr.com [65.189.129.140]. A Google search on 65.189.129.140 comes up with just two entries, both from Wikipedia. It turns out that 65.189.129.140 is "indefinitely blocked" on Wikipedia. That's anecdotal data of something but I dunno what. Moulton 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that on the Rosalind Picard case you've repeatedly used the word "libel" and variants thereof. Legal threats are never acceptable. Please see WP:LEGAL for further information. JoshuaZ 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that my position over at your RfC is a condemnation of some behavior on Wikipedia you happen to have run afoul of, but it's also not an endorsement of your actions. While I can sympathize with your issue, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the goals of Wikipedia. It is not journalism. Wikipedia only uses sources, rather than original research, for good reason.
I think we all are aware that our sources aren't always going to be right, but that's what we have to work with. People come here with some bizarre claims, and there has to be a way for the rest of us to verify them. Expecting journalistic work here just isn't realistic, as it would create more problems than it would solve.
I realize that you have run afoul of some particularly difficult editors, but you have gone about your dissent in a way that will easily end with you being banned. They're right about policy, even if a few of them tend to be dicks about it at times (that's not unique to Wikipedia, or even the internet, though).
It is still quite possible to work with difficult editors, but you have to really try to do so, through doing your best to follow all of the Five Pillars. Harping on Wikipedia's flaws isn't going to change anything at this point. I recommend creating a response over at your RfC, but keep it as concise as possible, stick to addressing the accusations against you, and be willing to accept your mistakes.
Regarding your problems with the Rosalind Picard article, I recommend you avoid the article for a while, in order to cool off and consider what you think should be done, and even if/when you return to it, you should avoid editing the article directly. You are clearly passionate about the subject, and the perceived conflict of interest will cause problems for you. Decide what you really want out of Wikipedia and the article; if you can't accept the flaws (at least for now), this project just may not be for you.
I'm willing to help you, but you have to realize that the way you've gone about things up until now has been counter-productive. Sxeptomaniac 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I think that the creationist controversy is often far more heated than scientific discussions because it's more of a socio-political dispute. Most of the group you find yourself in conflict with seem to feel that the intelligent design side is a threat that must be fought. Whether or not it needs to be fought is their concern, but I just think they are turning articles they are involved with into a battleground, which is clearly not appropriate.
It comes back to the reason I posted my comment in your RfC about the group you find yourself in conflict with. I actually was editing on Wikipedia over a year before running into a couple of them over at the Noah's Ark article. That's why I highly recommend getting to see how things are in other areas of the site, because those guys tend to stick to a pretty narrow range of topics. I suspect this whole issue with their behavior will come to a head eventually, but it will probably still be a while. Sxeptomaniac 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a group of editors involving Filll and some of his associates use bullying and harassment as a "tool" in their editing of Wikipedia, which sadly they seem to see as a battleground more than a fun and informative encyclopaedia project. I agree that these editors are often incivil, aggressive, hostile and adversarial. But please don't take my comments as a personal endorsement of you or your position- it's rather an endorsement of Sxeptomaniac's statement, which was not entirely favourable towards you either. Badgerpatrol 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude at times can be perceived as condescending at times (c.f this edit summary [8]).
This perception (whether intended or not) is probably partly responsible for your increasingly icy reception at wikipedia.-- ZayZayEM 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still looking for an appropriate clinical expression to characterize the "attitude" you allude to. One adjective that comes to mind is "disdainful attitude". The objectionable practice that arises from such a "disdainful attitude" is the unbecoming practice of lambasting, stigmatizing, or demonizing any individual whose role in this liminal social drama our vocal critics find at odds with their own preferred objective in this fascinating drama. Moulton 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am perplexed by the existence of 170 articles on Wikipedia, all sponsored by thirteen signatories of the Intelligent Design Project, 157 of which articles are assessed as of no importance. These articles primarily reprint the essential PR messages of a partisan/theological public interest lobby, including such lovingly crafted pamphlets as Intelligent Design Movement, Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity, Fine-tuned Universe, Intelligent Designer, Theistic Realism, and Teach the Controversy. Don't the promoters of those synthetic ideas have their own webhost to publish their own soap? Moulton 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you have even claimed this indicates to all and sundry that you do not know what you are talking about. Are you only good for giving advice and issuing assorted fatwahs, or can you take advice as well? If you are not too hide-bound yet to take some advice, you might consider taking some sometime. How many warnings will it take? Or do people have to get really rough with you? Because I hate to say it, but you are heading for trouble. Not a threat, just some friendly advice, and a word to the wise. Everything I told you so far has come true, and this will be no exception. So take it from me...keep pushing it, and you will get your "reward".-- Filll 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend the WP:TIGER essay as a good explanation for the existence of the articles, Moulton. The scientific validity of a view isn't what we use to determine if it should be included. Instead, we look at whether it's significant. The Intelligent Design movement is culturally and historically significant, so we should do our best to document beliefs and incidents relevant to it, along with significant criticisms. Sxeptomaniac 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither was Stanislaw Ulam, John von Neumann, or Douglas Hofstadter. Yet they all had something valuable to say on the points expressed in the 32-word statement. Moulton 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>The bottom line is, WP is under no obligation to accommodate the mental difficulties, idiosyncracies and shortcomings of all those who get accounts here.-- Filll 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Since it appears as though you do not wish to take the collective advice from the editors on your RFC, what would actually have to happen in order for you to be satisfied with this whole process and for you to begin to edit in a constructive manner? Baegis 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.
What you have from that history page is that Picard has no objection to this version...
Controversial Petition Signer
Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Dissent From Darwin Petition (see page 6 of the petition for her signature). This petition has received criticism since although all of the signers hold doctorates in science and engineering disciplines, only 154 of the 514 signers have biological science backgrounds.
Moulton 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My evidence is her own personal communication to me, at which time she directed me where to look for her edits from the 18.85.10 subnetwork associated with the VPN tunnel for the Media Lab. What is the "ID" message you allude to? I am not familiar with the "ID" message as I have never heard anyone present, describe, or argue for such a message. How would I (or anyone else) have knowledge of who she may have contacted? Why do you discount the best evidence you have regarding the misrepresentations on her bio page, which is the note she left for the editors of that page, pointing out the errors to which she took exception.
Moulton
19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It is unbecoming for Wikipedia to eschew the goal of achieving reasonable standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Decline reason:
You have shown no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Yamla 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Are you saying that Wikipedia has no policy or guideline for achieving a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media? Moulton 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You were warned about this at least 20 or 30 times. And I predicted it, if you will recall, if you did not mend your ways. I told you to pay attention to my predictions before, and you aggressively dismissed my warnings and predictions, seeming to display an arrogant attitude. This did not help, to be honest. Sorry. However, you had the benefit of much much more community hand-holding and attention than we would normally lavish on someone like yourself with your kinds of agendas.-- Filll 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If I had been present in the time of Pope Urban's Inquisition, I'd like to think I would have stood up for Galileo, even though all the reliable sources kept assuring the Pope that the Sun went around the Earth.
If I had been there at the trial of Socrates, I'd like to think I would have stood up for the principle of skeptical examination of the evidence, principles of ethics, and critical thinking.
Moulton 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect again.-- Filll 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to quixotic quests, perhaps none is more intractable than nudging a hopelessly dysfunctional system in the Bokononic direction of enlightenment.
Dave Souza had reminded me of Augustine, who is notable for having introduced the term "Original Sin" into the conversation. Of course, being a systems scientist rather than a theologian, I'm more inclined to analyze systemic errors rather than reckon anything as mortifying as "Original Sin." Still, it occurred to me that Augustine might have been on to something, so I took a closer look at what he was blathering on about with all of that godspeak.
Turns out a few of those pioneering oligarchs (e.g. Solon and Hammurabi, among others) had introduced a tragic logic error into their calculus. Rather than call it "Original Sin," I'd rather call it "Hammurabi's Original Logic Error" or "Humankind's Original Logic Error." Either way, the acronym comes out HOLE, so that one can smile and say that those who embrace their flawed paradigm have a HOLE in their head.
But I digress. It's difficult to do peer-reviewed original research in the field of Neuro-Mathematical Theology, so one is obliged to follow the lead of Umberto Eco. Eco said, "Whereof we cannot make a theory, we must tell a story instead." And I say, even if we can make a theory, we damn well better present it as a story anyway, since theory tends to make most people's eyes glaze over. Alas, I suck at storycraft, which is why I like to hang out around journalists. Mebbe some of their gift will rub off on me someday.
Meanwhile, I struggle with a compromise somewhere between scientific essay writing and amateurish comic opera. I figure it can only get better, cuz it can't get much worse.
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down Barsoom Tork is my name, and I rode on the paintball train, Til so much rivalry came and tore up the tracks again. In the fall of skandalon, we were rollin, just trollin for bait. I took the train to Wiki, that hell, it was a time I remember, oh so well. The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing, The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'. They went Na, Na, na, na, na, na, Blah, blah, buh blah, Buh blah blah, blah blah Back with Dave at Epiphany, and one day he said to me, "Moulton, quick, come see, a-there goes Filll on a spree!" Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if Hrafn's no good. Just take what ya need and efface the rest, But they should never have wiped out the very best. The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing, The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'. They went Na, Na, na, na, na, na, Blah, blah, buh blah, Buh blah blah, blah blah Like my father before me, I'm a working man, And like ZayZay before me, I took a rebel stand. Well, he was just pissed off, proud and brave, But paintball laid him in his grave, I swear by the verse below my feet, You can't raise the Torkel back up when its in defeat. The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing, The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'. They went Na, Na, na, na, na, na, Blah, blah, buh blah, Buh blah blah, blah blah CopyClef 2007 Joan Baez and Barsoom Tork Associates.