User:Abd/Moulton edit review

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Edits being considered for restoration[edit]

(diff and time are for removal edit)

  • Restored. —Palomino of Certainty 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reverted back out. Do not revert war, Moulton, that could much more easily lead to range blocks. If that's what you want, you can arrange it. But not yet, as far as I'm concerned. I was just coming here to consider restoring the edit myself, but would have allowed some time for objections. Now .... well, I'll put that off. I don't have the time today to really go further. Reverting edits is easy, considering them for inclusion is more difficult. --Abd 19:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Restored. Not sufficiently outside of present community norms to warrant removal. Mild, in fact, compared with other standing Moulton edits. The revert warring by IP should not be tolerated, though. --Abd 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(Old) Edits being considered for restoration[edit]

  • That was a live classroom demonstration in one of JTN's classes, that Adambro disrupted. —Montana Mouse 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits considered and accepted or not accepted[edit]

The following are revert diffs of edits by blocked editors. With each revert, when reviewing it, I will comment that the edit is approved or rejected, by me, and, at present, wait a little for objection to that specific edit. Objections do not control my decision, per se, but may influence it or how it is done. Others may place a signed comment underneath each diff, as will I when I approve of an edit, or reject it. These are personal decisions, not an official Wikiversity process. I reserve the right to edit this section to reformat or remove comments, this is for my study and advice, usable by others at their discretion. After an edit is actually restored, I may move the diff and comments to a different section, or delete it, as I choose. Thanks to anyone who looks at this. Time shown is that of the original edit, not the revert. Abd 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Restore. Appears to be a useful contribution. --Abd 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored. Given that Jtneill, on the Talk page, invited more emotions to be listed, and has been inviting cooperation from Moulton, this seems pretty safe. --Abd 03:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored. Revert warring had appeared, so I was retracting my earlier revert; I restored with strikeout and a note regarding the blocked editor. Not my preferred process. Adambro, if you see this, it would have been better to strike. The community may want to see that Moulton supported this editor. I was reluctant to allow it there because maybe Diego wouldn't want that, after all, he'd gotten into trouble over an attempt to (carefully!) help Moulton! --Abd 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored with note. --Abd 06:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore, partially, with redaction of specific editor references. The comment is useful without that. --Abd 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored with redaction and note. Restoration reverted. Placed link to the redacted version as a diff, with response. --Abd 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not accepted. Obvious reasons.--Abd 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

comment on this edit and the significance

Useful to see, though. Adambro had just defended a range block to stop Moulton from editing. I've noticed that whenever someone declares that they can block Moulton, he demonstrates the opposite. My guess as to his plan is that he has been demonstrating that it's impossible to block him, really, and he's right, not without such massive range blocks that the collateral damage becomes huge, and he can get around that, even, easily. And more disruptively. My suggestion is clear: as long as he is blocked, revert his contributions on sight, and optionally short-block the IP, and maybe short-block a range. Anyone can revert the contributions of a blocked editor. However, if he self-reverts, acknowledge the cooperation by leaving the IP alone, as far as response to that edit is concerned, unless true disruption (more than some transient mishegas in page history) is maintained. It's a quid pro quo, in return for our allowing him to make "on-wiki suggestions", which is what a reverted edit is, without fussing with his IP, he makes identification of his IP easier, makes following all his contributions easier, and collateral damage and wasted sysop time is reduced or eliminated. I've been, most recently, reverting his contributions except where someone else got to them first. In this case, Moulton did declare an intention to self-revert, but Adambro didn't give him time to do it. The edit itself, though, was useless and a waste of time. I don't mind, as to my own time, I find that Moulton has much to contribute that makes it worth my time. But he did toss away a perfectly good IP he had already used, and could have used for something else of substance, even if the practice of blocking him continues. Probably not a big problem, he's got lots of ways to get in, I suspect. Just consider Scibaby on Wikipedia: abusively blocked originally, retaliated by setting up over 500 socks and counting, resulting in a huge waste of volunteer labor, and occasionally huge swathes of the internet unable to access Wikipedia as IP, to prevent.... what? His actual edits are harmless, they are of highly watched articles and are quickly reverted, mostly. Moulton is trying to point out what he calls HOLE. Long story, not for here, right now, but, intellectually, it's fascinating. He's right. Being right, however, isn't enough to justify unblocking him, just in case anyone might think I'm advocating that. Not now, not immediately. Maybe later, if conditions change. Playing Whack-a-Mole is a colossal waste of everyone's time. Except maybe for Moulton. He enjoys it, it's a continued demonstration pursuing his educational objective. Really. But he could pursue that in better and more effective ways, which is why I believe there is a way out of this HOLE, this trap.

"Self-reverted edits," as I'll define them, are edits which identify the editor in the summary, if IP, or identify an account, in the case of topic bans, and note the block, and which declare, with the edit, an intention to self-revert. And then that are reverted promptly if someone else hasn't gotten to them too quickly. Self-reversion without identification is also useful, but identification is superior. Self-reverted edits with identification do not complicate block or ban enforcement, except in a negligible way. --Abd 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Not accepted. Might have been helpful, slightly. But moot now. --Abd 21:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

comment on this edit

Moulton is playing games, and that is a compliment. Somehow, "playing games," and games can be highly useful educational exercises, has come to be an accusation of reprehensible behavior. Children naturally play games, and if we reject games, we reject the part of life where learning takes place most rapidly. There are thus basic educational issues here, and Moulton is fully aware of this. One of his general themes is HOLE, his acronym for Humanity's Original Logic Error. I'm not expert at all on his theory, but part of it seems to be a belief that societies are best regulated through rules. The very term "regulated" implies rules, doesn't it? However, are societies which are rule-based more functional than those which rely upon other mechanisms? It's a very real question, and the probable answer is that rule-based regulation is, by far, not optimal. In my view, the best systems, at least the best I know, in practice and in theory, are hybrids. There are "rules," but they are not firmly controlling; yet if they are well-designed, almost all behavior will be optimized by them. And the exceptions will lead to maturation and growth of the system.

Here, he is attempting to set up logical contradictions. It should be understood that Moulton does not want to be unblocked. He is not naturally motivated to be cooperative, he has other natural motivations that, in some ways, are superior to cooperation. (And in other ways, my opinion, are inferior). What I've been proposing about self-reverted edits is a generic solution, and it does not require cooperation from a blocked editor; rather, it simply invites it. Moulton may not want this to be successful, because, if this becomes policy, it will pull the rug out from under his performance, which depends on rejection as part of his habitual drama.

Basically, we can refuse to play the rejection game. We can simply establish and maintain order here, and "order" refers to product, course materials, not to process, exactly. Reverting the edits of a blocked editor does not reject the editor. At all. It doesn't even reject the content, because, unless there is oversight, the content becomes part of the database, and, absent revision deletion, which is not going to be used with ordinary Moulton edits, anyone can read them, and, in theory, any unblocked editor may revert them back in, taking responsibility for them. They can be referenced from other web sites, and in email. This reversion is not censorship. Blocking the editor gets closer to censorship and rejection, but if an IP is not actually disrupting the content or the community, it is not necessary to block the IP. Self-reversion, if adopted by a blocked editor, leaves behind no necessary cleanup, and only those who voluntarily want to review the edits need spend time on them.

I do not mind the disruption on my Talk page, I voluntarily engage with Moulton, both on and off-wiki. If this causes a problem for anyone else, please let me know and we can discuss it. I don't know if Adambro will read this, but I'd urge him to relax and not be so quick to respond to edits which are actually harmless. He might save himself some time, and cause less collateral damage. Ultimately, this should be and will be, I predict, brought to the community, simply to set up policy that will avoid at least some of the disruption from blocked editors, provide a pathway to re-integration to the community, if they want that, while still protecting the wiki from disruption, the reasons why we might block in the first place. It's important, and that's why I'm spending so much time with this. It is part of making Wikiversity a safe place for people to work. --Abd 21:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Restore. appears useful --Abd 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored by WAS 4.250 [1]. --Abd 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore. appears useful --Abd 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored by WAS 4.250 [2] --Abd 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored. Does not appear to be controversial. Ordinary editorial process from here. --Abd 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Replace testimony with link to original and to redacted version, and neutral description, probably blanked otherwise, unless Moulton provides redacted version. --Abd 16:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Blanked section, with link to diff of change and to original version, and explanation. --Abd 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored.[9] --Abd 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored.[10] --Abd 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored. Looked good. --Abd 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Restored. Per email from MrABlair23, in response to my question, permitting this to appear on his Talk page. --Abd 14:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Notes and Comments[edit]

[13] may be Moulton, but not signed. Watch Contributions which appears to be the nature of the request. Request was reverted as not being for Colloquium. --Abd 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Private communication has been received from Moulton denying that this edit was him. --Abd 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring from Moulton took place yesterday. I requested that Moulton stop, but he did not. Therefore I requested IP blocks and page protection, which was granted (some blocking may have taken place before my request was filed). For the record, the editing took place, 24 August 2010, from the following IPs:

Almost all edits in this sequence were attempts to insist upon edits previously noted and in the process of being reviewed. I see no harm in what occurred yesterday, because, unlike some previous blocks and protections, these ones are more likely to enjoy consensus. What we are seeing is disruptive behavior from Moulton, possibly similar to what led to previous blocks and bans. No big surprise. Note that the disruption here is not in the edits themselves, but in Moulton's lack of restraint in waiting for review. Except where I have accepted an edit and have restored it, or have rejected it, I have not adequately reviewed any edit to reject it on the basis of content. The reverts that Moulton was reversing as IP were all made solely on the basis that he is blocked. I am recommending strongly to him that he refrain from revert warring over these removals, but, instead, wait for or seek review of the edits and restoration, if appropriate, through that process. I suspect that he was testing my resolve on this, for purposes best known to him. I continue to trust his good faith, while objecting to certain actions and taking steps to protect Wikiversity and the community.

A note about User:Abd/Request custodian action and Wikiversity:Request custodian action: I created the request on my user page, even though this may not be nearly as well-watched as the regular RCA page, because I knew that Moulton would see it and would know that I was serious about not allowing revert warring by IP. He had clearly seen warnings, but continued to revert war. Then, a bit later, I made reference to the page on the regular RCA page. The only harm from the small delay -- and there may have been no delay at all -- would have been in one or two extra reverts made necessary. That was my work, and I consider the positive contributions from Moulton, so far, as being worth that small investment, with possible future work of his being even more valuable. While this may be thought of as carrot and stick, there is, in fact, no stick here. Blocking an editor who is revert warring is routine, and it is purely protective. --Abd 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abd/Moulton_edit_review&oldid=712749"