This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random832 (talk | contribs) at 17:41, 14 May 2008 (+). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:41, 14 May 2008 by Random832 (talk | contribs) (+)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User:Moulton
Attack page - Content of "evidence" links is blatantly misrepresented. See User:Random832/User:Moulton.
- speedy delete as an attack page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As evidence of past and current misdeeds. This info will be needed for other actions on WP attributable to meat puppets acting at Moulton's behest. •Jim62sch• 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence is full of
liesblatant misrepresentation of the content of Moulton's posts to WR. If it's trimmed down to statements of things he actually did with links to him actually doing them, it _might_ be acceptable (however, "evidence" pages have been deleted under G10 before) --Random832 (contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)- Lies? Really? Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Calling something a "lie" is a comment on the person, not the actions. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence is full of
- Keep, at least until this current phase of Meat Puppetry and other lobbying by an editor who is not in good standing continues. We have recently had several efforts to carry out Moulton's wishes, and to unblock Moulton without following proper procedures. This is needed to caution others from acting precipitously in the current situation.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, his user page should not be used as a place to make accusations against him. Everyking (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - what misrepresentation? Are you saying that his RFC didn't result in a ban, or that the arbcomm didn't turn down his request for unblocking? Are you saying that he hasn't engaged in a campaign to get people to make his changes for him? Or that he hasn't said that he has contacted the press? Please explain what you see as misrepresentation. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am saying that ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE of the links to posts by Moulton on WR in fact contains what they are represented as containing. I am not saying that he hasn't engaged in a campaign to get people to make his changes for him, but I have clicked every link and have seen no evidence of such a campaign. That the links are represented as being such evidence is in fact a misrepresentation. --Random832 (contribs) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- comment No opinion as of right now, but I'm puzzled by Random's claim that the page is "full of lies". Moreoever, G10 is generally used on evidence pages that don't serve a useful purpose or are part of difs someone is in the process of compiling. That said, it may just make sense to have it as a separate page in userspace, especially if its current form is making people uncomfortable. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The same people who are trying to unban Moulton have taken great pains to whitewash the reasons he was banned. His userpage is, like many other banned users' pages, used to document his misdeeds. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is utterly unnecessary and is obviously upsetting to the guy. It's mostly speculation from what I can see and serves little purpose to the project here - Alison 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- serves little purpose to the project here - funny coincidence that this is being put up for deletion at the same time people are trying to get him unbanned. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Funnier that it's as a result of FM's modification of the page, more like. Things were just fine as they were, IMO. Note also that in this edit to Moulton's talk page a few weeks back, I refer to the word "kindness". We could use a little more of that around here, to be honest. If you wish to have collated evidence on why he's blocked right now, at least let's have the decency to put it somewhere else and maybe link to it, instead of desecrating his tombstone? - Alison 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it were his tombstone -- that is, if we knew he wasn't coming back -- and we wished to show kindness by not rehashing the past, that would be one thing. But it's not. Whitewashing his history here is the first step to getting him unbanned. And this is only made more-relavant by the fact that he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned. Raul654 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- " he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned." --Random832 (contribs) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it were his tombstone -- that is, if we knew he wasn't coming back -- and we wished to show kindness by not rehashing the past, that would be one thing. But it's not. Whitewashing his history here is the first step to getting him unbanned. And this is only made more-relavant by the fact that he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned. Raul654 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Funnier that it's as a result of FM's modification of the page, more like. Things were just fine as they were, IMO. Note also that in this edit to Moulton's talk page a few weeks back, I refer to the word "kindness". We could use a little more of that around here, to be honest. If you wish to have collated evidence on why he's blocked right now, at least let's have the decency to put it somewhere else and maybe link to it, instead of desecrating his tombstone? - Alison 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- serves little purpose to the project here - funny coincidence that this is being put up for deletion at the same time people are trying to get him unbanned. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, lovely, the page is even being used to smear me with the same brush for making a single edit to a BLP that was apparently a favorite of his. Delete this childish nonsense. krimpet✽ 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per Raul. We have an active campaign by the editor against Misplaced Pages. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- No evidence has been provided. --Random832 (contribs) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)