User talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:FeloniousMonk
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[hide]

Evidence for Statement by FeloniousMonk

Comments about SlimVirgin

Cla later posted a comment based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories on Wikipedia Review that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article.

as (the grammatically incorrect)

Cla later posted a comment (based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories) on Wikipedia Review that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article.

rather than

Cla later posted a comment (based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories on Wikipedia Review) that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article.

However, the relevant diff, this one makes it clear that SlimVirgin was referring to a comment Cla68 made on Wikipedia itself. Moreover, Cla68 was fully aware of where he had made the "high administrators" comment, and SlimVirgin's concern about it, since she had posted on his Talk: page questioning him about it, and he subsequently claimed to have been "joking" when he said it.[54]
Other bullying and bad faith comments

Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment/Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:Harassment#Harassment_and_disruption

Moulton

Conducting a campaign against Wikipedia

...and the Wikipedians who compose WikiProject Intelligent Design. The resulting disruption of Wikipedia includes meatpuppets and proxies recruited and directed by Moulton to edit on his behalf.

"The next thing that has to happen is to revise this paragraph...
Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[21][22] Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."[20] Though some of her beliefs are similar, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a..."
The paragraph should be changed to read as follows...
"Picard is one of 103 scientists and academics who signed an untitled statement circulated in academia in 2001, which the Discovery Institute subsequently promoted as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."[21][22] Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."[20] Picard says that intelligent design deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She observes that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[20]"
can provide the rationale to anyone here who requests it.
By the way, "the media" primarily refers to WP, as edited by the ethically challenged WikiClique on Intelligent Design.
Also, the comparable paragraph in the James Tour BLP also needs to be revised. And there is no need for that ridiculous and misleading heading, either." [226]

Sockpuppetry to evade a ban

WP:POINT, etc

Responses of other online communities to Moulton