My conflict is with the unjustified elevation to "facthood" of unverified theories and speculations extracted from the elements of the controversy.  Nor am I concerned about my anonymity.  It is trivially easy to look me up, and I presume that most interested parties here by now know my real name, credentials, and affiliations.  I have used the screen name "Moulton" since 1990, when I began developing science education resources on the Internet as a member of an educational technology research group funded by the National Science Foundation.  The articles I co-authored with Professor Picard were also funded by a grant from the NSF.  My allegiance is to the cause of science and science education, and that is the role I propose to play here.

To keep the peace, I will propose below the insertion of an intervening section between the biographical material and the disputatious "Darwin Dissent Controversy" that some editors here wish to retain on this page with appalling disregard for the ground truth.  

My concern is that some of the existing material is based on unwarranted assumptions regarding people whose names appeared on the original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition.  My concern is that the unwarranted assumptions constitute a potentially libelous violation of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause by propagating dubious claims of the DI as if they were established facts.  Elsewhere I have managed to highlight the passages where Wikipedia articles have blithely adopted the DI's view of the controversial petition without first examining the evidence for their dubious view with a sufficiently keen and skeptical eye.

Please bear with me and extend to me the courtesy of patience and good faith, as I am not conversant with all the Wikipedia conventions regarding resolution of disputatious content appearing on the biographies of living persons.  Please understand that I am here to work for the betterment of Wikipedia, in the name of science, science education, and science journalism.