User talk:Moulton/Roger Schlafly

David Berlinski
Hi Roger,

In case you missed it:

David Berlinski's published opinion is that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. He also criticizes Darwin's Model for not being scientific enough, because it lacks sufficiently precise mathematical predictions. See these notes for the full quote and for more detailed references to Berlinski's published views. —Moulton (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I missed that. FeloniousMonk has gotten me banned from WP before because I objected to some of his guilt-by-association tactics. He is always pushing his twisted point of view.


 * I see that the lead paragraph tries to associate Berlinski with ID and says what he "refuses to theorize" about. No neutral encyclopedia would have an opening paragraph like that. Nor would it have a criticism section comparing him to an AIDS denialist. Roger (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As you probably know, FeloniousMonk was smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power. What you might not know is that w:User:Odd nature was also a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk.  See also this thread on Wikipedia Review.  —Moulton (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I did not know any of that. ArbCom has more sense than I thought. You would think that if he doesn't like Berlinski's opinions, then that would be all the more reason to portray those opinions accurately on WP, so that the faulty views can be documented. But FeloniousMonk does not view it that way. Roger (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Roger, care to do something about this? —Moulton (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have given up on those jokers. They have no sense of fairness when it comes to anyone who is not an evolution true believer. Roger (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or you could, you know, help out in expanding the article. It needs a lot more about his books obviously. Note that removal of comments by Moulton is per policy for banned users. Also, note that working with such users may constitute helping them evade a ban. (incidentally I do think that Berlinski's on ID are probably more complicated than the page has them. But it is hard to see how to have a detailed version of them without heavy OR.) Finally, a bit of AGF and avoidance of personal attacks about other users would be nice. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how Moulton being banned justifies promoting false info about Berlinski. If you had any sense of fairness, then you would put his comments back. How did he put them there, if he was banned? Was he banned for telling the truth? I am not interested in expanding such a one-sided article. Roger (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. That's the issue I raised 3 1/2 years ago, when FeloniousMonk was still ensconced in power and IDCab still held sway. Here is what I just posted on WP:BLP/N:

I expect Mark Pellegrini, Joshua Zelinsky, name redacted as (i) that person has not given (implicit or explicit) permission to use it & (ii) it contains nothing even-vaguely-resembling "representations of [their] views", or some other remnant of IDCab will balete it, to continue their shameful cover-up.

Barry Kort 9:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is strange. I tried to determine whether Moulton was really banned from WP. From what I have just learned, he got an indefinite ban in 2007. From what I can see, the chief reasons were: (1) he is alleged to favor intelligent design but he repeatedly denies it, (2) he insisted on removing false and derogatory info from biographies of living persons, and (3) he has commented on WP edit issues on non-WP sites. I do not know whether the ban is still in effect, but it appears to me that he is just being silenced for expressing some legitimate views. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to this when I have time. In the meantime the fact that Moulton is continuing on this very page to out editors who are anonymous while making his conspiratorial rants should make you understand that your perspective on what happened is wrong. (I've deleted removed their names from this page. Please don't restore them). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there some reason that you are protecting their identities? These are people who go out of their way to post false and malicious info about living persons. They attack him under his real name. Why shouldn't he respond to them with their real names? The only conspiracy I see that he talks about is this., where various WP editors have identified themselves as having a joint intelligent design trashing project. Roger (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kindly read w:WP:OUTING, and then w:WP:AGF and w:WP:NPA. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, now relevant ANI section JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Let's get this out in the open, Joshua. It's time for the corruption to come to an end. —Moulton 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are being removed from WP. I cannot fight this battle. You are outnumbered among the interested editors. Schlafly 23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. I've put them back a few times, but it's mostly a fruitless battle at WP.  What you saw, with the David Berlinski BLP, was just the tip of the iceberg.  Here on Wikiversity, User:JWSchmidt, whose blog I linked to on Facebook, has studied the corrupt practices of IDCab in considerable depth.  I'd be interested in hearing your views on how to address the larger issues of unethical behavior by corrupt editors of WP, such as the one's you just encountered.  —Moulton 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
w:Special:Contributions/68.160.142.20


 * 11:07, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: Joshua Zelinsky illustrates Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed.)
 * 10:52, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎ (→David Berlinski: The time has come to clean up the messes left by and his cronies in IDCab.)
 * 03:36, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: Roger, care to do something about Joshua Zelinsky's activities?)
 * 20:34, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:David Berlinski ‎ (→Berlinski's Written Commentary: new section)
 * 20:15, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:David Berlinski ‎ (→Bibliographic Reference: new section)
 * 19:49, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace ‎ (→David Berlinski: Can we devise a satisfactory plan? —Moulton)
 * 19:45, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:68.160.142.20 ‎ (→David Berlinski: Jonathan, I'm going to need your help to do battle against the remnants of IDCab. How can we go about cleaning up the lingering travesties of these horrendous BLPs?)
 * 19:10, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace ‎ (→David Berlinski: More comments here. —Barry Kort)
 * 19:07, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:68.160.142.20 ‎ (→David Berlinski: Actually, there are a lot of problems with that BLP. I'm not a fan of David Berlinski. I happen to think he's a pompous ass. But I also think he deserves to have an accurate BLP.)
 * 16:04, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace ‎ (→David Berlinski: new section)
 * 16:01, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:68.160.142.20 ‎ (→David Berlinski: "Incorrigible" comes from the title of Berlinski's own hour-long video, "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski," where he clearly presents those views.)
 * 13:51, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) David Berlinski ‎ (edit summary removed)
 * 12:13, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) David Berlinski ‎ (→Views: Add some nuanced depth to the characterization of Berlinski's critical attitudes toward both scientific and unscientific models of evolution.)
 * 16:42, 6 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:John lilburne ‎ (→David Berlinski: IDCab used to be led by User:FeloniousMonk, who was roundly smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power.)
 * 00:06, 6 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:John lilburne ‎ (→David Berlinski: new section)
 * 23:44, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: More information.)
 * 14:01, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: new section)
 * 06:44, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎ (→David Berlinski: His published opinion is that ID is not a valid scientific theory. He also criticizes Darwin's Model for not being scientific enough, because it lacks sufficiently precise math.)