Misplaced Pages

User:Moulton

Please stop trying to delete the evidence of why this user is banned. He has been conducting an offsite campaign recruiting and directing meatpuppets from WikipediaReview to act on his behalf since he is banned which has resulted in much disruption of Misplaced Pages. Your actions on his user page are not helpful, and can be taken to be acting on his account as well since there's 5500+ other banned users who's user pages you are not trying to whitewash. Again, please to be more helpful. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you reblock him whilst you're at it please? I'm not too sure what duration you're going to set, but I'd suggest nothing less than indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the community ban, which was indef. Since his plea to be heard about unblocking was rejected by the arbcom, I'm wondering what justification in policy The undertow has for his unilateral unblock of Moulton. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please link me to the community ban? Lara❤Love 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Background info found linked from User:Moulton. KillerChihuahua 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I read that. Where's this community ban FM referred to? Lara❤Love 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you're going to play wikilawyer Lara, where's the discussion with the blocking admin? This discussion clearly supports the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, six people. Silly me. No wait, that's what I was talking about. Lara❤Love 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, all of Arbcom who voiced an opinion supported the block, and declined even looking at unblocking, due to the Rfc and how the request was framed (making it clear Moulton had not changed his approach a bit.) KillerChihuahua 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As his current meatpuppetry campaign confirms. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FM's comment above. Moulton was banned for good cause, and the arbcom saw no reason to change that. Raul654 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the_undertow's action, I'm just asking where the community ban is. Lara❤Love 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its an odd thing about vandalism - the vandal rarely labels it "vandalism". Just so, sarcasm rarely comes with a label "Sarcasm". And community bans don't come with big neon labels so you can read the words "Community ban". Read the linked Rfc, ANI, and ArbCom replies, and the block log. The sum of those items IS the community ban. I thought you were brighter than this, Lara. Are you having a bad day? KillerChihuahua 15:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the Arb case yet, but the rest is unimpressive, especially considering other editors have been unblocked that were way more disruptive than Moulton. Let me read over it. And no, I'm not having a bad day, but thanks for asking. Lara❤Love 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am disquieted by your deletion of User:Moulton just after consensus had been reached in the MfD; in your deletion comment you implicitly cite the "Right to Vanish", though obviously you'll be aware that this doesn't apply to persistent users who have been banned. Either way, I think it was a mistake to ignore consensus in this way, and it seems to me (from a brief reading) that your actions and general point of view in the matter put you in a conflict of interest.

Consequently, I am minded to undo your deletion and restore the page to the consensus-agreed page. I would appreciate some feedback on this (I may well have missed some obvious point, for example), as I don't like to undo the actions of fellow sysops.

James F. (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think it was a bad move to delete it at this point, but it's unclear how "a consensus had been reached in the MFD" - it's not been open four hours, and there are clearly people stating opinions in both directions. you were talking about the compromise --Random832 (contribs) 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave a lot of thought to what was said before, but I must say that pretty much it's all the suck. And if you weren't so busy fucking sniping on my contribs, this dood, who had a shitty 'banning' would have been able to edit with guidelines. When the fuck will people here learn to fucking let shit go. There's a whole world out there guys. I'm serious. You can go fuck, maybe get a degree and perhaps even cyber with some 'chick' on a webcam for a mere 50 bucks. Instead, you decide to snipe on what I do, in hopes that what? You think that 127 blocks will get you laid faster than me? Fucking realize that this is a hobby. You are not paid. Go fucking make a difference by donating blood and not tagging articles for speedy deletion. In the end, you have nothing left but memories. And you better pray to God right now that your memories don't consist of AfD, nor RfC, nor ANI, but perhaps the time you left the house and fucking had a drink. the_undertow 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, the undertow. I think you may need to take a breath. I've only briefly looked into the Moltoun thing, and I think I would tend towards agreeing with you, but this is a bit over the top. Please rethink what you wrote. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a hobby that people care about, with a goal that people believe in. It sounds like you are the one taking this too seriously. There is no inalienable right to edit Misplaced Pages - there are many other useful things Moulton can do with his time if is he unable to edit here. This hobby is a shared one, and maintains itself through (in this case relatively simple) rules and the good will of its members. Sorry to butt in, but I think you do a disservice to the folks involved in this sort of thing and the various elements of Misplaced Pages by your comments. If Misplaced Pages is so unworthy to you, and so disturbing to your equilibrium, there are other hobbies. Avruch 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that above response from you completely unacceptable and have therefore asked for opinions on AN/I. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#the undertow. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take this as tacit approval. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

His poorly worded point is that there are certain editors here who apparently have nothing better to do than hold grudges against others. What he so boldly stated (as I read it) was their time would be better spent out in the world rather than forcing their decision on everyone else like their community of six means something. What he didn't point out is that there's a group of editors in this project that appear to some to have an unruly amount of power, and also that if he'd teamed up with another powerful admin and created some sort of mentorship draft and gone before the community with his intentions, he could have successfully unblocked Moulton, regardless of the community's feelings on it, as was done with Jack Merridew. Lara❤Love 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The "community ban" was instigated by a member of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design and supported by some of those members (Baegis seems to be a puppet of one of those, that focused primarily on following Moulton around it seems... You can see the in the first 40+ edits or so) The interesting thing is that Moulton at that time was debating with that crowd about several BLP's that they had slanted (in moulton's view). So I see an admin banning someone that they didn't agree with and then being supported by "his" crowd, so that it could be called a community ban. I did not know Misplaced Pages had so few members so that 6 counts as valid support by the community. (As a side note, the ID crowd can be seen "vote stacking" in several different areas: RFA's, content discussions, RFD etc. quite interesting) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a community ban, it was bullshit. the_undertow had every right to lift the block. Should he have discussed it somewhere first? Ideally. But this little Trifecta that popped up had no right to respond the way they did, and what it's escalated into is ridiculous. I agree with your assessment and my time here now will be spent investigating it. Lara❤Love 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by LaraLove

(moved from thread above as off-topic and confusing)

Did he forget to do the customary AN/I thread where he waits a few hours and then unblocks after no consensus is reached based on his subpage with a mentorship plan? Damn... you should write a guide on that, Ryan. But it's good to see that Moulton is reblocked now, right? But only for indef? Why not longer, as Ryan hoped... how long would longer than indef be? Lara❤Love 14:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"He" who, Lara? He Ryan? Your entire post seems to be a snide comment on Ryan, which normally I'd be sympathetic with, but in the middle of this rather serious situation regarding The undertow's actions, serves only to confuse and belittle the issues. I'd appreciate if you'd move your comment to Ryan's page so as to keep this thread for the main topic at hand - thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"how long would longer than indef be?" Indef implies a chance to return, hence for infinity would be longer.  :) •Jim62sch• 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no correct answer. As indefinite is no set amount of time, you can't specify a greater length of time. That's what I was facetiously pointing out before everything went batshit crazy. Lara❤Love 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Spring fever, maybe? Oh, and my kids had Toy Story on when I typed that and I almost wrote "for infinity and beyond". Darned kids' movies.  :) •Jim62sch• 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why we can't not be sober on this issue

Hi,

It seems you have stepped on a mine. I once did something very similar, but on a much smaller scale. I think I proposed some edits on intelligent design that had previously been proposed by a certain banned user, and well I was totally perplexed by the reaction and also went almost crazy; I know it's not easy to stay sober when basically out of nothing it seems all the world suddenly turns against you; but take it easy and don't take it personally, this Moulton guy seems like a really really disruptive troublemaker. I don't know the full history, and neither do you seem to know it, so please don't fight this fight, and maybe we can just start this over.

Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment. It's nice to know that others are willing to empathize. But let it just play out naturally. There are 3 sides to every story, and not everyone is going to agree with the side I have taken. In the interim, I put my complete faith in the system, and if they deem that I have fought the wrong fight, then I lose. It's simply a gamble. And again, your words are greatly appreciated. the_undertow 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be 3 sides to every story, but when you remain silent, we don't get to see/hear it. Sorry, but that's just stupid. People are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your attitude/response is making it hard to do so.Balloonman (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It almost seems like you're endorsing that articles will be OWNed and that that's just the way it is. I hope not - why should anyone be spanked for daring to tread on what a group have decided. I read elsewhere on this page that the people who're at the very center of this dispute took themselves to equal 'community', too, and are now protesting the unblocking of what they had decided. Not so sure this should just be "move along"ed from. Achromatic (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that tone, of course people should fight for what they believe in, but I wanted to share my experience and express some sympathy. I only wished to say what I could so that the wonderful people at Wikiproject Tool, and the rest of us at Misplaced Pages, wouldn't lose a valuable editor because he got caught up in some stupid fight. If the fight is not stupid, then by all means fight it. I'm simply not a judge of that, but I think he needed to hear something like the above when everyone was attacking him. I meant it more as emotional support than actual advice on what is the Right Thing. Given that I'm terrible with emotions, I think that for once, I did it quite well, don't you think? :D Merzul (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration based on your recent actions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow Raul654 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, and there is an arbcom filing against Cla68!!! This has to be one of the saddest day in the history of Misplaced Pages. I'm not siding with anyone here, but this is going to mean big fights between many editors that I respect on both sides. :( :( Merzul (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the arbitration request and have the utmost respect that this situation will be dealt with godspeed. I should point out that 3rd party communications are of no value, as Misplaced Pages does not entertain off-site behavior. That being said, I will gladly adhere to whatever outcome ARBCOM decides, because after 11,000 edits, and numerous administrative actions, I believe in the system that I have given my free time to. Thank you. the_undertow 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL warning

This was a violation of WP:CIVIL. Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally view this as somewhat trolling. I get the impression that you are trying to get the_undertow to make another personal attack. I view this as a personal threat in ways. I feel that a Warning Template instead of personal message should have been used. This is entirely my opinion. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, a template would have violated WP:DTTR. KillerChihuahua 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with this essay, but the fact is that it is an essay and not a policy. I just feel that the choice words used were interpereted by me as trolling, and either a template, or a different choice of words would work better. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we have AGF - please try to apply it, rather than suggest templating. KillerChihuahua 15:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He made it personal. That was inappropriate. But, indeed, we don't template the regulars. Lara❤Love 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Crowley

I hope that you are not labelled a Black Brother, and are not cast irretrievably into the Abyss. :) Merkin's mum 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

De-sysoping.

Hey.

Per your agreement, which we've noted, a Steward has removed your sysop right.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I get the impression that you are going through some serious shit right now in real life. I just wanted to say that I hope it gets better. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)