Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton

message: 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)
thread_title: comments on Outside view by [[User:SheffieldSteel]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Moulton content moved from Rfc page

message: 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)
thread_title: Call for a Functional Social Contract

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments by Moulton moved here from project page

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by dave souza on Response by Moulton as of 04.26, 6 September

message: 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....
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Moulton 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on "Wikipedia is not journalism." 

message: An earlier example in the thread 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: Here, here!  I tried to help a little on his talk page, but the conversation quickly devolved into the same song and dance as before.  Baegis 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on second thought why waste yet more time on WP:CSN? I'm just going to indef and post on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent call. MastCell Talk 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If you have comments please add them at WP:ANI#Moulton. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough

message: ;Evidence of recruiting, directing meatpuppets to continue campaign from WikipediaReview:
* Example of Moulton's original editing campaign at Rosalind Picard: 
* Moulton's article at WikipediaReview advocating continuing his campaign at Rosalind Picard and James Tour: "So I am disgusted with Wikipedia" April 5th, 2008 
*Moulton recruiting meat puppets at WikipediaReview: , and so on for 4 more pages...
* Moulton stating he intends to bring the matter to the press: 
* Moulton advising meatpuppets on edits on his behalf to scuttle a hard-won consensus: WikipediaReview, May 12, 2008
* Brand new user making his first two edits matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008May 12, 2008 Same, acknowledging he's acted in response to Moulton's call: 
* Acknowledgements of directing meatpuppets: 
* Acknowledgement from admin of acting on Moulton's behalf: 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs) 
* An editor acknowledges having removed this section after Moulton sent him a PM on Wikipedia Review pointing at how this evidence had been posted here right after the very same evidence caused Moulton's user page to undergo this MfD where I had expressed that the user page should not contain links to that evidence. See proof of his acknowledgement. The editor denies being a meatpuppet and points out that he would have made the same actions had he received notice of this fact throught any other channel --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatpuppetry evidence since indef block