Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Moulton (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

User:Moulton has unfortunately evolved into a singularly unproductive element on Wikipedia, particularly on the articles Rosalind Picard, James Tour and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Moulton constantly seeks to sublimate earnest discussion into repetitive debate and discussion structures that produce no results while exclusively promoting the pro-ID viewpoint [1] [2][3][4] while ignoring the full measure of available information, and at the same time loudly and repeatedly proclaiming he's opposed to ID and its agents, such as the Discovery Institute:[5].

Desired outcome

We would like to see the following outcomes from this RfC:

Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to learn and abide by the project's fundamental polices and guidelines.
Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to immediately desist from edit warring on any and all articles related to the Discovery Institute, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, Rosalind Picard or James Tour.
Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to desist from badgering, harassment and disrupting talk pages, or canvassing for help in doing so.
Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to recuse himself permanently from editing any article which represents a WP:COI for him, Rosalind Picard in particular.
Moulton (talk · contribs) agrees to recuse himself permanently from editing all articles related to Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent design and related controversies.

Description

user:Moulton has an obsession with such narrowness to the exclusion of readily available overviews of the topic from more reliable sources that contradict the pro-ID sources and objections he is promoting. He often quibbles over widely accepted facts (see [6] for example) and definitions using the rhetorical arguments of the ID campaign with the net effect of driving discussion away from the acknowlegement of reliable mainstream sources with many baseless objections and attempts to redefine common definitions (for example, Moulton levels charges of spinning or "reframing" against the DI, Wikipedia, the New York Times and other editors at least 23 times on the talk page, such as at [7], and claiming that therefore we cannot interpret what is written as what is really meant, etc). In the course of his disruptive objections Moulton has an unfortunate habit of making constant ad hominem attacks and focusing on the "character" of Wikipedia editors, particularly those he opposes, to promote a dismissal of their comments while obfuscating the actual facts being discussed (see [8] for an example). By continually resurrecting and injecting personal gripes into new discussions, Moulton has sought to prevent any in-depth discussion of the actual topic. For example, there are endless fights about whether the petition consists of one or two sentences, about whether the petition is controversial or not, about whether the petition was titled properly or not when Picard signed it (but has been unable to provide any sources one way or the other on this issue), about whether the petition is anti-evolution or not, and about whether the New York Times is a reliable source or not. This is incredibly trying for anyone trying to make progress on the article and understand his concerns. He is clearly unable to accept that he cannot impose his will unilaterally on others on Wikipedia, and make up his own unsourced information to include in articles.

User:Moulton began editing on December 21, 2005, but only edited intermittently until August 22, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Moulton became obsessed with editing Rosalind Picard, and with editing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a petition she allegedly signed. Moulton's main claim initially was that Picard was induced to sign the Dissent from Darwinism petition fraudulently[9][10] and her position was and is diametrically opposed to that expressed by the petition and its Discovery Institute supporters. Moulton also claimed that The New York Times was guilty of shoddy journalism [11] and unethical behavior by not confirming this "fact" which he has repeatedly alleged (see for example, [12]), and Wikipedia is compounding the situation by using the New York Times as a reliable source. He aggressively harangued and lobbied many editors repeatedly with this POV, refusing to consider any other explanation or other interpretation but his own, which appears to have evolved over the last 10 days.[13] However, as editing has progressed, it has become apparent that this representation by Moulton is almost certainly entirely false, and Moulton knew this the entire time, wasting a huge amount of time and effort of all concerned in a cavalier dishonest fashion: [14][15][16]

Moulton has either been unable or unwilling to learn or understand how and why Wikipedia uses the WP:V and WP:RS standards, and other rules and procedures.[17] He has complained about this extensively on WP and externally: [18][19][20] He has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of the rules, culture and ethics of Wikipedia, made assorted overt and veiled legal threats against it and its editors (in violation of WP:NPA). He has expressed the desire repeatedly to be able to manufacture unsourced "truths" for inclusion on Wikipedia, of which he personally is the sole and final arbiter (in violation of WP:NOR).

Evidence of disputed behavior

In the course of his discussions and edits, it is also clear that Moulton has violated a number of rules on Wikipedia:

WP:COI

Moulton knows the subject of this article well, and has confirmed this repeatedly.[21] [22] He was repeatedly cautioned about being in violation of WP:COI if he continued editing the article,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] but he ignored this and continued to edit it anyway, sometimes responding in a less than civil fashion:[32][33][34][35]

WP:3RR and WP:EW: This is a rough summary of the events transpiring when Moulton began editing Rosalind Picard (not all edits and incidents included):

(Aug 22, 0:52) removal of sourced material:[36]
(Aug 22, 12:02) insertion of new material, partially sourced: [37]
(Aug 22, 13:16) reinsertion of new material: [38]
(Aug 22, 16:36) Minor edits, inclusion of poorly described aside:[39]
(Aug 22, 17:19) partial revert by Moulton[40]
(Aug 22, 17:48) reversion by Moulton[41]
(Aug 22 18:05) Warning on Moulton's talk page about not removing sourced material from or adding unsourced material to Rosalind Picard: [42]
(Aug 23, 01:29) reinsertion/reversion by Moulton [43]
(Aug 23, 3:02) Reversion by Moulton [44]
(Aug 23 4:03) Reversion by Moulton [45]
(Aug 23 4:04) Warning about 3RR on Moulton's homepage [46]
(Aug 23 4:15) reversion by Moulton [47]
(Aug 23 08:55) introduction of tortuous explanations by Moulton [48]
(Aug 23 10:16) reversion by Moulton [49]
(Aug 23 10:33) reversion by Moulton [50]
(Aug 23 22:24) Moulton's violation of 3RR reported at Administrator's Noticeboard:[51] Aug 23 22:24
(Aug 24 0:59) Moulton makes the claim the NYT is guilty of not verifying its claims [52]
(Aug 24 01:26) reverted again by Moulton [53]
(Aug 24 13:01) reversion by Moulton [54]
(Aug 24 14:24) Warning for tendentiously editing talk page comments [55]
(Aug 24 14:28) reversion of text by Moulton [56]
(Aug 24 18:36) Blocked for 24 hours for WP:NPA [57]
(Aug 27 13:55) application of 9 dispute tags by Moulton [58]
(Aug 27 20:26) removal of sourced material again by Moulton, and inclusion of non-consensus tortuous explanation: [59]
(Aug 30 00:46) revert back to non-consensus version by Moulton, who again asserts that those appearing on the list did not sign the petition [60]

WP:NPA

At 18:35, 24 August 2007, Moulton was blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks: [61] However, this did not end the stream of personal attacks by a long shot, as [62][63][64][65] demonstrates, for example, on August 30, 2007.

WP:DE [66][67][68][69]

WP:POINT [70] (discussed at[71]) Also warned about WP:POINT at [72].

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Moulton was repeatedly counselled to calm down and not engage in edit warring and tendentious editing.

User:Filll:[73][74][75][76] User:Filll even bent over backwards, calling Moulton by telephone and talking to him for hours to try to help him understand the rules of WP and what would be required to reach his editing goals:[77]
User:Hrafn42: Attempted to explain the relevant policies, patiently explained the problems with Moulton's edits and proposed a number of possible solutions.[78][79][80][81]
User:THF: Offered to mediate.[82]
User:Avb: Makes it clear to moulton, that his behaviour is unacceptable.[83]
User:Kenosis: First, offered to help mediate [84] [85]. Later, tried to make Moulton aware of the fact that his behaviour is unproductive at best, creates an unpleasant atmosphere around the articles, and is in violation of several policies.[86][87][88]
User:FeloniousMonk: Suggests that Moulton step away from the articles and take a little time familiarising himself with Wikipedia policies and guidlines, and warns him against disruptive and threatening behaviour.[89][90]
User:Dave souza [91] [92] [93] [94] Attempts to find compromise meeting Moulton's objections, requests that he find sources rather than persisting with original research and that he discuss proposed rearrangements to talk pages first rather than repeatedly making changes in a disruptive way.
User:Athaenara [95]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Objectives

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.

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.

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

Breaches of Expectations

A specific kind of breach to which I take exception is the inclusion of false and defamatory content, harmful to living persons, in violation of WP:BLP. It is my understanding that WP:3RR does not apply in those cases. Among the false and defamatory characterizations to which I take exception are gratuitous subjective and pejorative labels that serve to stigmatize, demonize, or otherwise belittle individuals who are perceived as being on the opposite side of the fence from editors favoring a partisan political or theological agenda, in contravention of WP:NPOV.

General breaches to which I take exception (e.g. systematic bias in coverage or perspective, excessive advocacy for a cause, anonymity vs responsibility, fanatics and special interests, etc) are all discussed at length in the main article Criticism of Wikipedia and need not be revisited here.

Users who endorse this summary:

Moulton 04:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:SheffieldSteel

(Opinion withdrawn after seeing Moulton's response.) User:Moulton has characteristics that Wikipedia would normally find to be of great value in an editor: intellect, education, and a dedication to science and truth. However, these are apparently coming into conflict with Wikipedia's fundamental principles and the result is proving disruptive and distracting to all concerned.

I believe that Moulton is a potentially valuable asset to wikipedia, and that we would all benefit enormously from his being adopted by a mentor, assuming that a candidate could be found who would have his respect.

In addition, and partly to give this idea chance to work, it seems like an excellent idea to implement a cooldown period for the contested articles, with all involved parties voluntarily agreeing not to edit them for a time.

~~Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

User:Moulton has characteristics that Wikipedia would normally find to be of great value in an editor. However, these are outweighed by his unwillingness to compromise with other editors or to learn Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and his apparently unshakeable belief in his own moral superiority. It is somewhat ironic that he criticises Wikipedia's standards for fact-checking, apparently based on an inadequate understanding of WP:V and WP:NPOV.

I believe that further contributions from this editor will continue to be as tendentious and disruptive as those seen to date. Why should he change now? The journalist has got his article.

Users who endorse this summary:

Inside view by User:Filll

Compounding this problem considerably has been the way in which Moulton has presented himself to the Wikipedia community. Moulton originally came asking for help with the biography of a colleague, Rosalind Picard, who had been purportedly victimized by an unscrupulous organization, the Discovery Institute. Moulton claimed that Picard had been fraudulently induced to sign the Dissent petition, and that she did not support intelligent design, did not support creationism and did not support the Discovery Institute's agenda. [96][97]Moulton indicated that Picard did not intend to remain on the petition, and only did not remove herself because she did not know how, and/or was unwilling to go through the difficulty associated with it. These claims were all incorrect, in fact, and Moulton knew they were incorrect, although he claimed the opposite.[98][99][100]

In addition Moulton presented himself as a supporter of evolution, someone opposed to intelligent design, someone opposed to creationism and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. Moulton did this in private emails, on the telephone and in numerous Wikipedia postings (for example, [101]).

However, this actually is incorrect, and Moulton was falsely representing himself and his views:

[102] [103][104][105] [106], which became copiously clear.

Moulton has falsely represented his views in an effort to manipulate and undermine the good faith efforts of Wikipedia. He appears to be a POV warrior intent on ideological warfare, and Wikipedia is just part of the battleground, even forming an alliance with notorious creationist and banned Wikipedia editor Larry Fafarman [107].

Users who endorse this summary:

Odd nature 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avb 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ornis (t) 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim62sch 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing under false colors, misrepresenting oneself, in order to gain the upper in a content dispute is a serious violation of the community's trust. I have even less sympathy now for Moulton's position, if that were even possible. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better not to sail under any colors. Addhoc 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Sxeptomaniac

While I see that Moulton has certainly violated several rules, and the RfC has been earned, I would also point out that the situation seems to have been aggravated by users who have decided to make Wikipedia their battleground against the ID movement. This has given rise to some uncivil behavior that needs to stop.

In particular, I find Filll's attempt to describe Moulton as a stealth ID supporter highly inappropriate, and the evidence quite flimsy to boot. Upon checking the supporting links, I believe Moulton is sincere (though he seems to have used all the wrong methods) in attempting to support Rosalind Picard, and Filll's "evidence" is merely Moulton's acknowledgment that the mechanics of evolution are still under discussion (though that discussion has sometimes been misunderstood/misused by supporters of ID). For the most part, it doesn't matter what users believe here anyway, only that they make good contributions, which are sourced and NPOV. Filll should re-evaluate his behavior when dealing with disputes on these kinds of topics.

Users who endorse this summary:

Sxeptomaniac 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been made very difficult to discuss with any good-faith due to the use of Wikipedia as a warground against Intelligent Design --ZayZayEM 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility abounds. Badgerpatrol 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partially agree - on the ID related talk pages there has been an unnecessary emphasis on editors saying they support or don't support ID, which is completely irrelevant. Accusing editors of supporting or not supporting ID is unproductive and experienced editors should be guiding the debate such that it purely focusses on article improvement. Addhoc 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, for comparison, my RfC. I also agree with what ZayZayEM and Addhoc said. Gnixon 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MastCell

The talk page guidelines exist for a reason. It is extremely problematic when editors ignore these guidelines and treat article talk pages as a forum to endlessly debate the merits of their pet contrarian belief. If you want to convince the world that secondhand smoke is harmless/HIV doesn't cause AIDS/evolution is bogus/vitamin C can cure all human disease/vaccination is harmful/statins are deadly/global warming is a U.N. plot/Einstein was wrong/Joseph McCarthy was a Great American/General Marshall was a Soviet spy, the Internet is chock full of opportunities to make your case. Article talk pages are not the venue to do so. Wikipedia may cover these beliefs as notable phenomena, but discussion needs to focus on the mechanics of how they are covered rather than on their inherent correctness.

It would appear that Moulton (talk · contribs) is ignoring the talk page guidelines in a pretty significant way, and utilizing article talk pages as a forum for discussion and debate about underlying scientific truths rather than article improvement. This tends to have a ripple effect and draw other editors into a counter-productive debate. I would suggest that all article-talk-page comments be confined to discussing specific, concrete changes or improvements to the article in question. If that proves impossible, then I do think we should be a little more liberal with temporary topic bans or other remedies for persistent abuse of talk pages. Perhaps we should also add to WP:NOT that Wikipedia is not online journalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

Moulton indef blocked as irretrievably disruptive.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.