Comments
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...
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)
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)
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.
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.
3. My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are falling short of best practices.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Editors who endorse this course of action:
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)
Please cast your vote for one or more of these expressions of attitude:
Please cast your vote for exactly one of these expressions of approval/disapproval:
Moulton 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To this, I might add [4]-- Filll 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Inserting response to questions by Badgerpatrol: what has anything you've asked got to do with this RfC? I don't censor anything on this project, but really your comments should be moved to your talk page.
OrangeMarlin
Talk•
Contributions
00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I would respond, however given the record of some who misuse administrative tools to gain the upperhand in disputes here, I will decline. Just let me say I do not like to be lied to and used. Thanks awfully. -- Filll 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
<RI>I just choose to ignore his comments. But I'll support getting a community ban on this individual. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton does not state anywhere in his aims "writing an encyclopedia" "working towards consensus with other editors" "adequately and correctly sourcing content" or anything which indicates he even knows where he is. It appears Moulton has confused Wikipedia with some kind of forum where OR and POV reign supreme, and twisting people's tails by playing the "martyr" card is good for something besides contempt or amusement. I've tried to work with him to help him understand how Wikipedia works, and he not only hasn't learned a thing he has continued playing games with manipulation and misdirection, albeit so ineptly that he is driving away anyone who has made the attempt to help him. If anyone else thinks there is any hope, feel free to give it a try, but in this puppy's opinion take this straight to WP:CSN and save the time and trouble wasted on this time sink. He's not here to assist in building an encyclopedia, and he's getting very much in the way of that aim with his disruptive tendentious proselytizing for his POV. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: ANI thread now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeloniousMonk ( talk • contribs)
Comments
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...
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)
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)
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.
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.
3. My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are falling short of best practices.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Editors who endorse this course of action:
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)
Please cast your vote for one or more of these expressions of attitude:
Please cast your vote for exactly one of these expressions of approval/disapproval:
Moulton 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To this, I might add [4]-- Filll 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Inserting response to questions by Badgerpatrol: what has anything you've asked got to do with this RfC? I don't censor anything on this project, but really your comments should be moved to your talk page.
OrangeMarlin
Talk•
Contributions
00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I would respond, however given the record of some who misuse administrative tools to gain the upperhand in disputes here, I will decline. Just let me say I do not like to be lied to and used. Thanks awfully. -- Filll 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
<RI>I just choose to ignore his comments. But I'll support getting a community ban on this individual. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton does not state anywhere in his aims "writing an encyclopedia" "working towards consensus with other editors" "adequately and correctly sourcing content" or anything which indicates he even knows where he is. It appears Moulton has confused Wikipedia with some kind of forum where OR and POV reign supreme, and twisting people's tails by playing the "martyr" card is good for something besides contempt or amusement. I've tried to work with him to help him understand how Wikipedia works, and he not only hasn't learned a thing he has continued playing games with manipulation and misdirection, albeit so ineptly that he is driving away anyone who has made the attempt to help him. If anyone else thinks there is any hope, feel free to give it a try, but in this puppy's opinion take this straight to WP:CSN and save the time and trouble wasted on this time sink. He's not here to assist in building an encyclopedia, and he's getting very much in the way of that aim with his disruptive tendentious proselytizing for his POV. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: ANI thread now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeloniousMonk ( talk • contribs)