Thank you for bringing that page to my attention. I had not seen it before.

It will take me some time to review, absorb, and digest all the material that's been posted in the wake of FM's creation, ex nihilo, of a new user page bearing my name.

It occurs to me that in reverting FM's arguably inappropriate creation of the page in question, you were upholding WP:BLP#Non-article_space standards...


I don't think there is any question that what FM posted there is both contentious and questionable. I'll leave it to others to adjudge whether the sources which FM is relying on are considered probative or WP:RS by Wikipedia standards.

Things are happening faster than I can track them.

If I'm not totally lost, the MfD had reached some kind of temporary detente at a version suggested by Naerii. Then MastCell proposed this version instead, with a prominent Scarlet Letter tag (and the false annotation beneath it)? I can't tell which version prevailed per Raul654's bold action, as MastCell had commented favorably on both versions.

Then you summarily deleted the page again? Is that what I'm seeing now?

And you blanked the tag on the talk page, too?

Probably by the time I post this note, the situation will have changed again.

# 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, 2008 May 12, 2008 Same, acknowledging he's acted in response to Moulton's call: [15]

# Acknowledgements of directing meatpuppets: [16][17] [verification needed]

* Acknowledges correspondence, does not state or imply that the nature of the correspondence includes directing anyone to edit articles.

i got bit here

You're not helping yourself, or Moulton, by refusing to civilly explain the reasoning for your actions. If you do that, without pissing all over people, then you might get by without being desysopped. I've commented against an immediate race to that end, but it could still easily end up there if folks are convinced that you will continue to make controversial and unexplained actions as an admin.

Raul has gone to ArbCom over this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#The_undertow

You're not helping yourself, or Moulton, by refusing to civilly explain the reasoning for your actions. If you do that, without pissing all over people, then you might get by without being desysopped. I've commented against an immediate race to that end, but it could still easily end up there if folks are convinced that you will continue to make controversial and unexplained actions as an admin.

A lynch mob is not the way to do this.

If the ArbCom have any sense, they will run a mile from both requests. If they go along, it will be proof positive that a cabal is more important than the ethics of running Wikipedia.

the_undertow will lose his tools if his RfAr is accepted. Not that he cares, and not that it's justified. He has my support.

I'm surprised (pleasantly, perhaps, though it may not be the most relaxing option for himself) by his actions.

Standard Operating Procedure for Raul, of course!

wait what?
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread....781#post1166781

Would anyone object to my retitling this thread, since it's actually turned into a discussion of User:the_undertow's ArbCom situation?

I was thinking maybe something less silly this time, like "What is a Community Ban?" or just "Raul654 goes after the_undertow."

Wikipedia:Requests 4 Arbitrariness

Apparently Raul654 thinks the words Moulton, I did what I could, and it turned out badly amount to "bragging." Obviously Raul654 is one of those who assumes that nobody will actually click on the links that are provided, at which point they would obviously discover that the_undertow isn't "bragging" at all.

Standard Operating Procedure for Raul, of course!

wait what?
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread....781#post1166781

This guy probably saw the Arb case and decided to spread a bit of FUD and make himself look important on his message board.

This guy probably saw the Arb case and decided to spread a bit of FUD and make himself look important on his message board.

Incidentally, I have proposed a Moulton unbanning at WP:AN.

I am asking ArbCom to investigate and determine whether the allied editors and admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath engaged in a familiar Kafkaesque formulaic script routinely applied to a substantial number of cases similar to this one, without regard for conscientious and due diligence in the exercise of due process.

...

I am asking ArbCom to look beyond the details of any single case for a recurring pattern of unfair and draconian treatment that bespeaks an unbecoming trend in the disregard of reasonable standards for the exercise of due process.

Statement by Moulton

I am asking ArbCom to review whether responsible admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath afforded me diligent and conscientious due process, without regard to the whether the final outcome would have been justified by a fair exercise of due process.

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of allied editors and admins arrogating to themselves the roles of judge, jury, and executioner when they initiated the RfC as plaintiffs and witnesses.

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of an admin executing a block based on a haphazard or presumptive theory of mind regarding an editor's interests or intentions, wherein the admin inexplicably failed to request or attend to evidence refuting the theory of mind upon which the contested decision rests.

I am asking ArbCom to review whether KillerChihuahua applied an excessive and unjust remedy in view of the issues raised in the RfC.

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of a blocking admin to ignore information and evidence that clearly demonstrates an error in judgment by the admin who rendered the judgment to execute the block.

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of an admin acting presumptively on a theory of mind without seeking evidence from me to ensure that his belief about my intentions is a valid theory of mind.

I am asking ArbCom to review Yamla's response in light of these unanswered questions.

I am asking ArbCom to consider whether MastCell exercised sufficient due diligence in ensuring that I was afforded a fair hearing by an impartial jury rather than being subjected to a hasty and undignified action that demonstrably subverted reasonable principles of due process.

I am also asking ArbCom to render an opinion whether Wikipedia does or does not adhere to normative standards for ethics in journalism.

I am asking ArbCom to investigate and determine whether the allied editors and admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath engaged in a familiar Kafkaesque formulaic script routinely applied to a substantial number of cases similar to this one, without regard for conscientious and due diligence in the exercise of due process.

I am asking ArbCom to look beyond the details of any single case for a recurring pattern of unfair and draconian treatment that bespeaks an unbecoming trend in the disregard of reasonable standards for the exercise of due process.

the_undertow will lose his tools if his RfAr is accepted. Not that he cares, and not that it's justified. He has my support.

Of course it's justified. As well as frequently abusing the tools, and bragging about it here, he's rude, uncouth and is hardly in the position to be an editor, let alone an admin. He should have been desysopped long ago.

Just out curiosity, Alex, could you spell out "abuse of tools" a bit more, and say what acts of his are worrisome examples of such abuse of adminstrative powers?

Knowingly going against the consensus of an MfD discussion, and bragging about it on here for one. And his edit/log summaries leave a lot to be desired.

For the benefit of those who are directing their attention to my case for the first time, let me provide a little background and perspective.

The RfC against me was brought by members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, in the wake of content disputes on five or six of their articles — notably the biographies of James Tour, Rosalind Picarcd, and David Berlinski, and the articles on Icons of Evolution and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

I had been editing barely a week or two in their bailiwick, before User:Filll formally filed the RfC, which he and User:ConfuciusOrnis had been preparing on September 3rd and 4th in Filll's user space.

The RfC was dominated by members of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, who acted as Plaintiff, Arresting Officer, Prosecutor, Bailiff, Judge, Jury, and Executioner. ConfuciusOrnis even filled in the Response Section of the RfC on my behalf, and signed my bottom line endorsement to it, taking selected portions of unsigned material I had begun to construct in Filll's rehearsal area. I thought that was a tad irregular and mentioned it to Kenosis.

On September 11th, User:KillerChihuahua, who is also a member of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, summarily terminated the RfC and proceeded to an indefinite block, bypassing the WP:CSN process. She gave as her reason, "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc.", overlooking the {fact} that I had credentials in co-authoring an 8-page peer-reviewed and editorially vetted article for a four-volume print encyclopedia.

User:Yamla then placed a notifying tag on my talk page, giving a different reason ("repeated abuse of editing privileges") with the link going to WP:Vandalism. If you look at the RfC, you will discover that the word "vandalism" never appears. Thus both posted reasons for the indefinite block made no sense to me as they were at odds with the facts on the ground and with the content of the charges on the RfC.

In view of these confusing perplexities, I managed to submit a Request for Arbitration to ArbCom, asking them to review troubling aspects of my case.

Note carefully that I did not ask to be unblocked. For all I knew, I deserved to be blocked for some valid reason, in accordance with some comprehensible review of my alleged transgressions. And so I only asked ArbCom to opine on whether I had been afforded diligent due process in the course of the RfC.

My section of the RfAr concludes as follows:


ArbCom declined to take up the question.

You missed something. Raul was a senior arbitrator at the time of your case. He is also the senior member of the Intelligent Design crowd. There wasn't a hope that your case would be reviewed by the Arbitration committee in an impartial manner.

Raul's name does not appear on the signatories of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.

I'm unclear how to establish his alliance to that clique of allied editors, shy of your personal testimony.

Try using your eyes and moving a mouse once in a while.

That was unhelpful, Kato.

I'd be grateful for something more helpful to me.

That was unhelpful, Kato.

I'd be grateful for something more helpful to me.