User talk:Centaur of attention

Question

With regard to this edit, would you be kind enough to point out to me the item(s) on the blog in question that you are taking exception to? Moulton 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What, you want me to repeat your outing of Wikipedians? No thanks. Centaur of attention 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You have many channels of communication to choose from. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing of that nature on the site(s) in question that has not already been voluntarily disclosed elsewhere. —Moulton 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Be mellow, please

Let's see where they're going, OK? Studying Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable on Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm only removing links that out Wikipedians. I could care less about whatever else they do or say. Centaur of attention 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've talked to Cary about it already, and my involvement in this issue is upon his request. As far as I'm concerned their project is perfectly acceptable on Wikiversity, I told Cary as much, and I promised to keep an eye on it.

The "outing" of Wikipedians is part of the "Wikipedia phenomenon", and thus appropriate as part of a learning resource about the Wikipedia phenomenon. That stuff's out there anyway, so linking to it really does no harm. Again, please just be mellow and let them construct their learning efforts as they see fit for a while... it might end up being constructive despite all odds (or even because of all odds).

If you stick around a bit, you'll find that we Wikiversitans are Idealists (capital "I"), and we're quite old school about things like "assuming good faith" and the whole "no big deal" side of things. That should not be mistaken for naievite... trust me, we'll not tolerate the abuse of our wiki. Just keep in mind that our scope is very broad, and that WAS and Moulton haven't broken any of our rules so far. I promise to do my best to encourage them to be positive.

This will all be fine, or it won't, which will also be fine in the end. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the "outing" of Wikipedians is fine, linking to pages that "out" Wikipedians is not. If the difference is not clear to you please talk to Cary or Jimbo about it. Centaur of attention 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell ya what, you talk to them, and tell them to get in touch with me if they have concerns. Until then, I'm fine with it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a request on your behalf. Please don't become the problem. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Several people here and at the WMF Office have since inquired about the details. The item(s) mis-identified and mis-characterized as "outting" are nothing of the sort.

I have again reverted the vandalism of user pages and project pages by this individual.

Moulton 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"removing bias presentation of the facts"

In reference to this. Rather than just removing data, perhaps providing what you consider to be an "unbiased" presentation of the facts, might allow for others to come to a more balanced conclusion on their own. Emesee 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about helping responsible editors from Wikipedia such as myself rather than enabling drama-promoting troublemakers banned from Wikipedia misusing Wikiversity to attack and harass Wikipedians? Centaur of attention 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see an open forum discussion of the issues. —Moulton 06:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Centaur: please do not misunderstand us - WV is open for all. If you - and also others - provide an answer to the "why" that helps that others understand better what people are trying. Then we can come to a solution which makes more people happy. You can at anytime get the attention of more people when you add your comments e.g. at Wikiversity:Colloquium or Wikiversity:Request custodian action, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 14:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be appropriate to use Wikipedia as a forum for creating changes in how Wikiversity is managed?"

If it was within the scope of Wikipedia (as defined by community consensus?) and it could potentially benefit Wikiversity, then perhaps it might be appropriate. Yes? Emesee 00:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the survey. There is probably different definitions of what kind of change it is meant, see here. I agree with Emesee - one can talk about everything. And if users from Wikipedia (banned or not) feel like talking somewhere else, this could indicate that the discussion back then was not finished satisfyingly for all involved parties. I am happy then if we can offer them a place to continue this. I don't see a problem that banned users should not be allowed here to participate. I believe that anyone deserves a second, third, fourth, ... chance (that goes also to those who ban people).

I guess the view of what the mission of Wikiversity should be is just different. WV is e.g. about learning (communities). And here everybody has a different view/definition what "learning" is. Some have a broader definition, some less broad. Regarding which definition/view one has, you must understand people here at Wikiversity. E.g. learning for some means a mental change and that then can mean: things that help to create a mental change are ok. When seeing wikis not as static but dynamic and knowing/believing in the revertability of edits the learning experience increases. I see WV as a place where people can learn personally in their development - every action one does influences one's life, the view on things. This "learning" certainly takes also place at other places but e.g. since the other Wikimedia projects have a limited scope - e.g. WP creates mainly encyclopedia articles, WB creates wikibooks - they perhaps are not always suitable for all aspects of learning. I also believe that when WV has produced "products" that these should be exported to other Wikimedia projects - when they fit the policies there. People create the products. I want primarily people to interact here, if then they during that create products: perfect. But hey, that is just my view and WV has many participants and they see WV surely different. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 05:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims on your user page

Per this [1] your first contribution/registration date appears to be 2008-07-11. That doesn't square with your claim that you've "been a regular contributor in good standing to Wikipedia for over a year" unless you're using an alternate ID here. If you are, you should disclose that you are a sock of another editor, shouldn't you? Or not make the claim to have more than a month's experience. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of other questionable claims, assertions, and allegations on your user page that are unsupported by evidence, reasoning, or careful examination for accuracy by impartial observers. How may we eliminate the errors, inaccuracies, misconceptions, and misperceptions, and arrive at the ground truth on the various disputed and unsupported claims? Would it be possible to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Process here? —Moulton 14:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note: It is my view that Moulton's questions are not related in any meaningful way to mine, which are rather simpler. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar is entirely correct. My concern is about a different set of claims, for which the owner/operator of this avatar offers not a shred of evidence or analysis to support his claims.

For example:

“

On his blog, "MoultonLava," Moulton has accused me of being FeloniousMonk at Wikipedia, which I'm not, and posted my employer's name and IP address.

”

Please post your evidence and interpretation to support this claim so that it may be examined by impartial observers.

Moulton 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to the ethics project. I fully support your efforts to remove links that out people that are not adequately justified. While BADSITES is a bad policy proposal that was correctly not made policy; I have not seen adequate justification for the presence of those links at this project. Thank you for deleting those links. On the other hand, WikiVersity is its own project and is creating its own process for handling questions on links. Taking the matter outside WikiVersity was, in my opinion, not justfied and inapproppriate; but I supposed good people can differ on that. We are inclusive; meaning that we create learning resources from many points of view. So do not delete other points of view. Add your own. But please do not attack others without links to evidence and only as needed in order to provide a learning resource. The point of the project is to create learning resources. Again, welcome. WAS 4.250 16:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I too am troubled by too high a proportion of people banned from Wikipedia rather than others signed in as participants. I have tried to recruit Wikipedia people. I am not allowed to prevent people banned from Wikipedia from participating. And so far they have not caused problems except for the dispute over a few links added by Moulton. And that issue is being resolved it seems. WAS 4.250 16:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to wikiverisity! Thank you for being apart of the ethics project. I read you user page and found something that needs reflection. On your user page it reads: "This project can only be improved by preventing the participation of those who are banned from Wikipedia from discussing Wikipedia and who have past personal conflicts with those they are writing about." If Wikipedians, even good standing wikipedians, never wrote anything bad about other editors, then I would say you have a point, but we can easily point out pages were active wikipedians have wrote something bad about others. I believe you found something that not only where Wikiveristians can improve, but Wikipedians will need to also improve just as equally. Despite that, this should not be a Wikipedian versus Wikiveristy type of situation. The argument over rather the ethics project has any authority to change Wikipedia is moot as unfounded, so I suggest not to worry about that. The mere act of you enrollment to the ethics project only makes it self-evident that type of participation that is expected, yet maybe you felt compelled. Also remember, the people that have been blocked in any way at Wikipedia are not automatically qualified as "banned" users, so your attempts to come to Wikiversity to tout such idealogy is effectively as worse as what you noted your opponents made. I hope you realize that, so we can move on to being more productive where Wikipedia is an good source of reference, and Wikiversity is an awesome learning resource. Dzonatas 17:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem

The link you removed in this diff actually contained materials of educational relevance. Removing links to pages which are designed to "out" is fine and appropriate, but blanket removal of any and all links to a particular website is not. If you wish to make constructive contributions that can help steer the learning resource towards NPOV (or at least rovide alternative POV), please do so. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's blog outs certain Wikipedian's. I'm sorry you don't see a problem with that but others do. Jimbo has asked him to take them down and stop linking to it at Wikiversity and Moulton has refused. I'm going to insist on it. As an administrator the community expects you to support responsible editors, not enabling those who mean to harm them. If the NYT article that Moulton is posting is that informative, now doubt it will be published somewhere other than Moulton's blog. Why don't you make an effort to link to that instead rather than giving me a hard time? Centaur of attention 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You've made this claim several times now, but you've not identified the passage that you claim is an outting. Where is it? —Moulton 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please before removing edits (e.g. [2]) try to discuss this through until the end with the parties who helped to create the learning resource. You can anytime create your own version of the learning resource (e.g. by forking). ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have some free time, how about coming to chat for discussion ? #wikiversity-en Thanks, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that an IRC channel? If so, I can't, my office blocks IRC. But I'm happy to answer any questions you have by email. Centaur of attention 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's IRC (if you have the possibility in the future just click on the links in the signature). The idea is to get to know each other better (wikis are not so ideal for interactivity) - who knows that could help save time on all sides. I will drop you an email anyway.----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism and restored the case study that Dan Tobias had entered for consideration, examination, and discussion. —Moulton 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask this legitimately. How are his actions "vandalism"? It seems like, (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Centaur of attention feels Wikipedians are being "maligned". If this is the case, and he truly believes they are being maligned, and is in good faith removing the content, then how are his actions vandalism? Emesee 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have, on my user page here, a brief biographical sketch that establishes my academic credentials, my CV, and my publications. Other editors here (and on other WMF-sponsored projects) are entitled to be aware of any claims I make to establish my bona fides. For a hostile and rival editor to redact my representations to my bona fide credentials is nothing short of an act of vandalism. See this recent reversion by Dan Tobias to restore my biographical sketch. —Moulton 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Moulton often uses (e.g. in chat) language which awakes negative associations in the listener/reader :-( I would speak of edits which temporarily reduced text. It is just a wiki, nothing isbroken - everything can be brought back again. And I am sure the page itself will change over time when discussing the issues itself. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Emotions have names. If you thumb through the dictionary, you can find hundreds, if not thousands of words that name affective emotional states. If you go to a paint store, you can find thousands of paint chips, each with a name. If you wish me to become aware of one of your affective emotional states arising in the course of reading a passage, just type the dictionary word that corresponds to the name your affective emotional state. And if you can't think of the correct word, you can say you're feeling alexithymic about a particular phrase, sentence, passage, or paragraph. —Moulton 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He is entitled to his feelings. But his affective emotional state is not necessarily an accurate model of the ground truth. If he believes there is something inappropriate that violates WMF policy or WV policy, there is a process for adjudicating the issue. If we all could blithely assert that our personal feelings govern what goes down, we'd be back in the anarchic jungle, rather than in an online learning community in search of insight and the ground truth.

Now perhaps Centaur of attention or one of his friends in the WikiClique on Intelligent Design feels they have suffered a Narcissistic Wound as a result of something published on-wiki. That would not surprise me one bit. Narcissistic Wounds are a dime a dozen in our culture. And I even have empathy for those suffering Narcissistic Wounds, up to and including the most problematic Narcissistic Wound of all — the Never-Healing Wound of Amfortas.

I would be more than happy to discuss this topic with Centaur of attention, with FeloniousMonk, with Odd nature, with OrangeMarlin, with Guettarda, with Jim62sch, with ConfuciusOrnis, with Hrafn, with KillerChihuahua, with Dave Souza, with Baegis, with Blogger Skip, with Durova, with Raul654, with PrivateMusings, and with Filll.

Moulton 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Malign?

By what exactly do you mean when you write "malign"? Thank you. Emesee 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfairly and inaccurately portray in a bad light. Centaur of attention 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you characterize this, in terms of those same criteria? —Moulton 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Audio introduction

Please participate at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio or Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio/Transcripts. --JWSchmidt 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

[3], [4]: could you please add your comments (again) on the talk page or fork ? (I think I told this also above) ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Attack pages: good idea, I have restored the pages again, so people also see the same page as you saw it before blanking. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad joke, right? Did you honestly just restore something so that people could talk about how terrible it is? My comment about having a ACTION RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE LEARNING EXCERSIZE where I replace all the user pages on this project with giant dangling penises and then revert anyone who tries to fix it (In the name of learning what people do when their user pages are just pictures of dangling penises) is seeming less and less like parody of what goes on around here and more and more like an action that a long-term contributor would make in total honesty. Salmon of Doubt 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The learning resource was restored, so people have the same initial view as User:Centaur of attention. There are certainly various opinions about it. Since a request was made at RCA more people will have a look at it and hopefully participate. You and others have also the possibility to place a deletion template there (as I see it was again blanked :-( ). Please feel invited to participate here also.

The learning exercise above you propose might not be well taken by users here - I'd assume. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Centaur of attention: Since you reverted here again, and at another place someone reverted your blanking - and you reverted this then - don't you find to wait a little more until more people gave feedback at the RCA is better ? So far it is viewable that there are different views. CU, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "acting" on your request, but I am taking it seriously and looking into it. Things are rather tense at Wikiversity in general right now, but please do stick around and do your part to help improve things. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not settled by deletion

Centaur of attention, On wikipedia there is the saying, "content disputes are not settled by deletion". Instead of summarily removing the work of others, would you please explain your perspective in the page? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Hillgentleman. If you have a question to ask about an existing case, please ask it in the context of that case. If you have a case of your own to submit, please submit it (and be prepared to defend it with reliable evidence and sound reasoning), as it is our custom in scholarly studies to subject each other's work to scholarly peer review. —Moulton 14:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Read Hillgentleman's comments above again, please. There are community discussions about what to do with the project, so if you want to register your opinion, please do. An apology will not be forthcoming, please be civil :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

G'day Cent

I noticed you blanked a page containing an email I wrote with a rather strongly worded edit summary. I'm in the process of moving the pages I've worked on into my userspace, to a 'sandbox', and am likely to return that content there too... I hope that the material I've submitted to date is helpful and interesting, and don't really think your edit summary was fair... wanna talk? :-) Privatemusings 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of Pages

Your action here, the blanking of the page and calling it an "attack page" does not meet the definition, as there are no parties involved to be attacked. Furthermore, even Killer Chihuahua thought that it was a good page to demonstrate to Moulton how to discuss the topic without turning it into an attack page. I expect to hear from you shortly an explanation for your actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that you blanked Moulton's talk page while he was in the middle of a task and right before community peer review which would involve many editors of this project, including administrative staff. I have brought this up here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop enabling troublemakers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Centaur of attention 23:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coa. I think that while your intentions are the best, your actions are a bit precipitous. Remember that this is a fairly small new project, and they have never dealt with a situation like this before. A little patience goes a long way, and allowing the Vfds to run their course will surely not hurt anything much - while I think a couple of the pages should have been speedied as attack pages, Ottava's investigation was not one. Perhaps you could slow down a bit? thanks - KillerChihuahua 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

blanking

If you feel that pages should be blanked the proper way is to make a request, for instance at WV:RCA. Do not blank any more pages without a community discussion. --mikeu ^talk 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like to reaffirm what Mikeu's saying here. The Jade Knight 08:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

It's been made pretty clear to you that we prefer discussion over blanking, and accusing everyone of "enabling" isn't a particularly good way to start discussions. Use your words, or you will lose the privilege to do so. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply doing what you as an admin should be doing, Johnny. Moulton has been using links to sites that attack and out Wikipedians in order to harass them. If you would do your job I would have to. Shame on you for enabling harassers and troublemakers like Moulton. Shame. You owe all of us an apology for helping Moulton harass us by obstructionary notes just like this one. Centaur of attention 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)