Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's block

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion closed, the sense of the community is that Moulton has been disruptive, and that the block is appropriate. The community's displeasure of his block evasion using IPs and alternative accounts should also be given considerable weight, so this block should be considered a community ban of Moulton until such time as he comes to a reasonable agreement with one or more custodians in regards to acceptable behavior as a student/teacher/peer. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that Moulton cannot currently respond here because the account is blocked. To read his views, see Moulton's talk page.

User:Jimbo Wales banned Moulton for incivilty . This may have not been the most transparent of actions and may have been a surprise to some. I am posting this here so if Wikiversity users would like, they can discuss it here to see if there is in fact consensus among Wikiversity users to ban User:Moulton. I'm not suggesting lifting the ban at all, although Wikiversity:Community Review seems like it would be the place to do it. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Supports the ban To separate me a bit from that, I will start this new indented reply. I support the banning of User:Moulton for a couple reasons and probably more. 1. he should have known better than to post emails and other things that have had to be oversighted multiple times 2. Jimbo Wales believes he should be blocked for the good of the wiki and the community - Wikipedia is much more mature and "successful" than Wikiversity thus far and we should follow his advice based on his accumulated experience with facilitating the success of projects. 3. not respecting and also circumventing the block thus far. So I support a ban until furthur notice. He is certainly more than welcome to participate in a thoughtful and considerate manner on other wikis and show that he can do so in ways that are accepted by the larger community. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with below comments showing concern for the way the block was implimented, I am highly disconcerted by the way Moulton has refused to acknowledge his block, and continues to antagonize elements of Wikiversity, setting himself up as a martyr. I would like to see better behavior coming from him before lifting the block. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see bad behavior. He is trying to effect a major paradigm shift. When you look at what he has done from other perspectives, it can be justified. I am going to establish a sub section were we can set out exactly what we see as bad. I don't think we have ever sat down and done this. i would rather not lose a visiting scientist at MIT with a PhD in Network Technology. Geo.plrd 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Experts can be a valuable resource to wikivervsity and we should encourage their contributions. But, I think we need to distinguish between mere affiliation or credentials and the more important issue of the quality of the contributions which an expert makes here within their field of study. Isn't that the real reason why wikiversity should strive to encourage an expert to participate? I am not aware of any edits that Moulton has made to "Network Technology" pages. Please provide links if I have missed something. The majority of his contributions have little to do with his research. See: Wikiversity the Movie/Wikiversity is a Mighty Fine Ditch or this example (copy of one of his contributions which was deleted from wv.) Please clarify how his position at MIT is relevant to this dicussion. --mikeu ^talk 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mikeu. Moulton's PhD is only relevant if he had been contributing significantly in a relevant field at Wikiversity. As it is, he seems to have entirely ignored his specialty, and as such, his role as an "expert" is meaningless here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I primarily am concerned with the precedent Jimbo has set with this block. It appears from the discussion that he will remain blocked. The main point I want is that Jimbo is out of line, not that Moulton is unblocked. Geo.plrd 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

i don't think that following the lead of Wikipedia is a good idea. The mission of Wikipedia contradicts that of Wikiversity. Its like having a Professor of English do your taxes. The foundation of the community is that the Community has paramount power. Jimbo stepping in and unilaterally imposing sanctions takes power from the community. While I have no problem with him expressing the opinion that Moulton was wrong, I do not believe it is academically sound to allow him to force that opinion down our throats. Regardless of whether it was right, it is the wrong path to start down. In the law, this is called a slippery slope. You don't go down these slippery slopes because of the ways it can spiral into unpleasant things. Geo.plrd 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As fas I'm concerned, we're not going to be applying this as an example of judicial precedent here. If it becomes something other than an isolated incident, the community might have to draw up a statement to send to Wales to encourage him to back off. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedural Reverse I move to reverse the ban on the grounds that Jimbo has overstepped his authority. Geo.plrd 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Emesee, I take it that you do not distinguish a block and a ban. Anyway, Jimbo Wales has not edited Wikiversity since its launch and we can consider him a (re-)newcomer and unfamiliar with Wikiversity as it is now. His unfamiliarity can be seen, at least, in this edit [1], where he said he was happy to "remove" Dtobias from the project (a very unwikiversity expression!) if necessary over an action a month before under completely different environment, atmosphere and circumstances. I consider his action very much "wikipedia-like" and is unsuitable for wikiversity, which has a different demographic and has evolved differently. Looking at the (in my opinion) juvenile flame wars on wikipedia (sample of which has recently been seen on wikiversity), I would not consider wikipedia in any way more "mature" than wikiversity. If Moulton were to be blocked, there should be a community discussion of the reasons; Moulton should have been given a specific final warning on-wiki, and a suitable time-limit be proposed. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you think that a block and a ban are different. Emesee 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is right. For example, I do not oppose if, as an emergency measure, a wikiversity custodian blocked Moulton for a specific time limit for a specific thing he did (like posting private information on wikiversity, or flooding the recentchanges with edit wars). However, as wikiversity is a wiki, a ban should be by the community - or, as it is a website, the owner of the host. As it stands, Moulton was blocked by Wales in consultation with the bureaucrats and the community still has to discuss the block. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support block. For reasons that we have started to elaborate on at Requests relating to Moulton, Moulton's block, Moulton's talk page and range block log. I will contribute much more on this page in the coming days... --mikeu ^talk 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the precedent that this block set? Geo.plrd 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Realize that one can support the block without supporting the precedent (see above). The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the initial block set a precedent. --mikeu ^talk 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, If we are to discuss the block of Wales, we should not use the events that happened afterwards to justify it.:-) --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a little confused about which section of this page is for which part of the discussion... There are multiple issues: the reasons for Moulton getting blocked in the first place (regardless of by whom), the fact that it was Wales who made the block, events that happened after that, if the block should continue, and if the block should be a ban. Sorry if my comments about different aspects are getting mixed up within the wrong sections. Let me back up. Moulton was going to get blocked. There is no question about that. The reasons for the block had been building for some time. I was holding off on doing it (before I was even aware that Wales knew of Moulton's edits on wv) to give diplomatic attempts a chance to show progress. I was not particularly hopeful that those efforts would succeed given how the dialogue was going at that time. I was also concerned that attempts to work with Moulton were draining the time and energy of the community. Moulton might have had another day or two to edit before the first short blocks by me or others, maybe a week or so before that escalated to an indef. But, IMHO, when it happened - it was long overdue. --mikeu ^talk 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also Support a ban, although we should probably clarify what we mean by the terms "block" and "ban" in the context of this discussion. --mikeu ^talk 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongest support block/an possible Not here to create learning resources. A consumate troll across multiple internet sites. Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the precedent that this block set? Geo.plrd 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this block. I also urge people to look through the activity documented at User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block. However, I am still not happy with the precedent of this block, and encourage the community to continue working on our principles and policies to ensure that, in the future, we take these sorts of decisions and actions as a community. Cormaggio ^talk 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. I disagree with how it came about, but I do not support unblocking based purely on procedure. Moulton's behavior on WV was inappropriate before the block, and has only gotten worse after. His scientific expertise is mostly irrelevant, as his only contributions have been well outside his sphere. In fact, I have not seen a single edit of his that could be considered a worthwhile contribution to WV. He's too focused on his personal feuds to make unblocking him a good idea, as being wronged on Wikipedia does not excuse his behavior here. I agree with Cormaggio that this should not be considered a precedent, but instead an exception. We in the WV community need to develop a better method for dealing with problem behavior in the future. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Jimbo have come in here and IARed a block on Moulton? Probably not, despite statements from some curators that effectively admit that at the time they temporarily lacked the will to do it themselves. So... bad process. But good outcome. Unblock because of bad process? No. Cost benefit analysis shows Moulton to be a huge drain on resources, far in excess of what most people would judge as the benefit. This is especially bad for smaller wikis that have less resources. I support this ban. But I have little to no standing in this community, take it as an outside view, nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support block, per reasons already given. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral IMHO, the initial block of Moulton wasn't done well the first time. On that point at least there is I suspect some good consensus. So, my feeling is that if the block is proposed to be re-done (i.e., to change from a Jimbo block to a WV community block), that we at least take some extra effort to do it "properly"? By that I mean something like stating a neutral-tone, succint, precise set of behaviours of concern, with evidence of specific diffs, etc. and links to the respective policy issues or related consensus - followed by community response. This was a key step IMHO that was missed. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with J T Neill. Someone needs to tell Moulton what specific deeds he had done before Wales blocked him to deserve the blocking; or, if that is the case, "the Wikiversity community simply cannot accomodate you, at least at the moment". For even if his essays were the longest and his language are not music to a lot of ears, Moulton was not the only one who engaged in edit-warring and flooding the recentchanges list. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

(This should be updated as votes are added):

• 7 Support a block, of which 5 explicitly support a ban. (Lar also supports a ban, but considers himself an outsider and is not currently counted in these numbers. Sunstar NW, on the other hand, is counted per his comments below)
• 1 Oppose on grounds that Jimbo was involved.
• 1 Neutral, believing that the block should be totally redone after certain conditions are in place. (Hillgentleman appears to be also of this persuasion, but has not explicitly declared a position, and is as such not yet counted.)

(initially summarized by The Jade Knight ^(d'viser))

[edit] A Random Page-Break

User:Moulton has not addressed, or even acknowledged, his actions and behavior Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Requests_relating_to_Moulton User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block that led to the block. The reason that he has given for why he should be unblocked is refuted - it is quite clear from the discussion above that the only reason why we are even reviewing the block is because of community concern about the process that led up to it and that the block was done by Jimbo Wales. There is no indication in the comments in this discussion that the concerns that the community has about process are reason enough to consider an unblock. [2] There is clear support from the community that the block is justified and should remain in place. In any case, Moulton's "reason" for unblocking is not a valid response to the many problems that have been brought to his attention. This is a continuation of his evasion in taking responsiblity for his actions and refusing to address the concerns of the community.

I think that there is consensus that Moulton should remain blocked (despite concerns about the process that led up to it and that the block was done by Jimbo Wales.) The issues related to process can be brought up in a seperate WV:CR, but for now let us consider the block itself. Are there any objections to this assessment that the community considers a continued block of User:Moulton justified? --mikeu ^talk 15:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment below was copied by me from the unblock request at User talk:Moulton. --mikeu ^talk 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason given by Jimbo Wales has not yet been demonstrated or peer-reviewed per the express requirements of the First Law of Hammurabi. We must now have a hearing and a trial of the charges leveled by Mr. Wales. Please lift the block so that we may proceed to trial to examine the evidence to be provided by Mr. Wales and to cross-examine his witnesses. —Moulton 17:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) [3]

I don't see any improvement of behaviour. In fact, I see quite clearly the opposite, and while the disruption is quite visible here, it isn't limited to this project. That said, the actions taken to combat such disruption is largely up to each community.

---

Moulton's disruptive accounts are a major problem in my mind, especially since they are being used in rather familiar ways. Moulton has been asked to stop participating on Wikiversity until we make a final decision and has refused to abide by that decision, instead creating accounts to further disrupt the project. I can only conclude from such a response that increased disruption would follow an unblock. I must therefore agree strongly with Mikeu:

1. Moulton's behaviour has been problematic for some time;
2. Blocking him was a long time coming - overdue, in fact;
3. Whether we agree with Jimbo's actions (and I happen to disagree) it's a separate question (though one the community needs to reflect upon);
4. A community ban enforced by a block is the best way to repair the Wikiversity community and prevent further disruption to this project.

I think the discussion here shows broad agreement that the block should not be lifted; I support that stance. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Mikeu and Mike.lifeguard. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moulton's Behavior

What behavior of Moulton's do we see as unaccpetable? Geo.plrd 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Taunting other contributors on this project and Releasing private information of individuals on this project, for starters. Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Moulton has thoroughly demonstrated he will not constructively contribute to this project:

• Using a project as a platform for a personal feud was the biggest problem, IMO. His "case study" is a good example of this.
• When others attempt to address his poor behavior, he tends to lawyer based on procedure, rather than address the issues. When dealing with my removal of his bogus case studies, he refused to address my arguments, instead claiming that I was not following the correct procedure (mostly through private channels). See also his unblock request
• He tends to spam his work through excessive links and multiple cut-and-pastes.
• Rather than moderate his behavior, he edit-wars (see the Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion history).
• When KillerChihuahua joined the project in order to address what she felt were inappropriate attacks, Moulton taunted and attacked her with her real name multiple times (I believe most of that is now oversighted). This is related to his attempt to continue a feud here that began on Wikipedia.

In short, Moulton is obsessed with getting back at those he feels wronged him, has acted against the goals of the Wikiversity project, and has not been willing to moderate his behavior, instead taking advantage of the patient, inclusive atmosphere. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block for more detailed examples. Cormaggio ^talk 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While the point about the edit-wars may be valid, it is also valid to say there were others involved. It would only be fair to name who else was involved in the edit-wars. Dzonatas 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

True, though I don't think it's absolutely necessary to name the others here, since this was specifically about Moulton's behavior. It's worth noting that he has also reinserted edits removed for more serious issues, such as when he used real names. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is not worth it to mention the others, then it is not worth it to mention there was an edit-war at all. Dzonatas 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Dzonatas 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did explicitly name Salmon_of_Doubt in the above page, and, while I think his behaviour at times has also not been a bed of roses, I think Moulton's was by far the more problematic. Cormaggio ^talk 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas, I'm not sure what the issue is. The question was specifically what behaviors of Moulton's have been a problem. In addition, while most of his edit-warring has been against Salmon of Doubt, he has done so against others as well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I retracted my previous statement because it was meant as a rhetorical and not (to be) made personal. Dzonatas 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that his constant violations against his (initially temporary) block combined with his use of totally one-sided examples and loaded rhetoric to push forward his POV are what are what are most unacceptable (in addition to "outing"). The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The initial temporary block by SB_Johnny was only for two hours. Do you have any evidence to support the allegation that Moulton posted during that two hour interregnum? Original Spin 04:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about your current block. Posting comments on this page right now seems particularly inappropriate for you. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Observations

Transactional analysis offers some ways of understanding what seem in these two cases to be somewhat intractable conflicts. However, in the words of Ken Wilber (1981, p. 328),

at this point in history, the most radical, pervasive, and earth-shaking transformation would occur simply if everybody truly evolved to a mature, rational, and responsible ego, capable of freely participating in the open exchange of mutual self-esteem.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: answer to Philosophical Question #3 and User:Hillgentleman/consensus and the zeroth law of robotics. --mikeu ^talk 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also of possible interest in terms of perspective-taking in interpersonal relationships: Johari window. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Spin

I reiterate - I can technically ban Moulton from this project. It is trivial. Why are his accounts and IP addresses allowed to keep going on like this? Salmon of Doubt 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until the Community Review has passed, at least. I would very much like to see Moulton exhibit better behavior on his own. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think someone besides Salmon should do it, if it becomes necessary. There's far too much personal animosity between Salmon and Moulton. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that any one other than me has the technical ability to do so. I'll release my source code. Salmon of Doubt 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For those of us trying to catch up, could you clarify what you mean here? A pointer to a previous discussion would be fine... but I'm not following this just yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that he can set up a bot to revert Moulton. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The heuristic to detect Moulton is trivial. SB Johnny is correct. Salmon of Doubt 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point there. Regrettably. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. I agree, Sχeptomaniac. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki is Open-Source software. There is no need to implement close sourced solutions as a bot. Post a patch to the MediaWiki list if you have the technical ability. Dzonatas 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to ban Moulton from every MediaWiki project. A flag to "ban Moulton from this project" is code creep. I will release the source code of my Moulton reverting/blocking bot under the gpl, making it open source. Salmon of Doubt 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have neither suggested nor encouraged you to make such a specific flag that would cyberattack user(s). I also do not support your viral attempt to release such software. I simply echoed a common course of action to improve open-source software, but it appears you did not recognize it as such. Dzonatas 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Salmon, Moulton should at least be allowed to give specific answer specific problems on this page. Any problems with that? --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see: Changed protection level for "User talk:Moulton" The page has been unprotected for the sole purpose of allowing blocked user to respond to Wikiversity:Community_Review#User:Moulton. Any posting of personal information or use of the page for other discussions will result in immediate re-protection. --mikeu ^talk 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose he's back to his old ways. Reprotect the page. Salmon of Doubt 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

What are we doing with respect to this block currently? I see some support for a community ban in discussion above (and I would agree that's an appropriate course of action), however nothing has been implemented. I also see support for developing better procedures for such dealing with such disruption in the future, such that extraordinary actions from Jimbo are unnecessary (and I think that's a very good idea), yet nothing has been done in that vein. Moulton's talk page remains open for him to edit it - the reason for this was to permit him to respond to the discussion here, though I fail to see anything resembling a mature or useful response on his talk page; indeed I see more of the same behaviour which we've determined is unacceptable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Moulton is now repeatedly circumventing the block placed on his account. At first this was done editing without creating accounts, then with a series of sockpuppets. This necessitated a series of rangeblocks; since Wikiversity doesn't have any CheckUsers, this was done without access to information to better determine what ranges to block. I have attempted to refine the rangeblocks so they affect the fewest number of IPs possible, however they are evidently to narrow now, as Moulton has continued to create new accounts to circumvent the block, necessitating steward intervention. Still, I believe the range blocks in place will not be effective, though without CheckUser data I am reluctant to cast a wider net.

This behaviour is rather unacceptable in my mind - if Moulton wishes to contest the block he has had ample opportunity to do so on his talk page, which he has specifically been permitted to edit for that purpose. As I noted above, I don't see anything resembling an attempt to contest the block either on his talk page or in his edits elsewhere using the sockpuppet accounts - simply more of the same behaviour which led to the block in the first place.

– Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him? Geo.plrd 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, that is what we've been doing. There have been no responses to his posts in the past 10 days. But his editing outside of his talk page has been disruptive. See my comments below. --mikeu ^talk 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have supported the unblocking of him as I did that of JWSchmidt, but his behavior post-block has been totally disrespectful; I frankly thing that if he cannot respect Wikiversity now, then I have little hope that he would if he were unblocked. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

His continued editing during the block has been disruptive. Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Moulton's_talk_page Of particular concern is his use of sockpuppet accounts to vote in a Wikiversity:Community Review [4] [5] [6] and recreation of pages [7] that were deleted at WV:RFD. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/3#User:Moulton.27s_didactic_character_subpages_-_DELETED The discussion thread above discussing his block is near closing, as there seems clear concensus that it should continue. --mikeu ^talk 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The continued disregard for scholarly ethics has not only been disruptive, it's a dysfunctional practice that undermines and corrodes the very concept of an enlightened academic culture. To continue to disregard these core academic values abrogates the published mission of WMF and jeopardizes the status of WMF as publicly funded educational non-profit. Moulton 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Kort, for the most part I have agreed with you. However, I find it ethically suspect to run an experiment without the participants' consent. Just because WMF may be a drama engine does not mean that contributors have implied agreement with experimentation. Many people have asked you to stop. I do see that you have stopped most of the concerning behavior and have restricted yourself to your talkspace with some exceptions. This shows an improvement over behavior from a month ago.

Your results and observations will also be invalid as you are injecting yourself into the mix. This is a direct contradiction of the scientific method, where scientists are observers.

I do see a definite improvement in behavior which gives me hope. I am therefore proposing a potential solution that is designed to restore order and salvage a contributor. My motivation for doing this is closure. I think that everyone is tired of having to deal with this matter. Please see the next section for details. Geo.plrd 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is intended to be an experiment, I feel that I can confidently say that no IRB in the United States would approve it. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closure

Note: please see the summary above. --mikeu ^talk 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is designed to bring closure for both the Community and Moulton. Please feel free to comment on each individual point.

[edit] Background

• This matter stems from conduct of User:Moulton considered disruptive by the Community.
  • Moulton was and is banned on the English Wikipedia. It is outside the purview of this Community to comment the merits of such an action.
  • After his ban, Moulton came to and utilized Wikiversity to attempt to reform areas of Wipedia. His reform attempts were an expression of his dissatisfaction with Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia editors saw this project as an attack page on Wikipedia.
  • Moulton has violated the privacy of one Wikipedia contributor by using their real name on Wikiversity.
  • Moulton appears to equate Wikiversity with Wikipedia.
  • He has made repeated complaints of being banned and has equated banning with a Bill of Attainder.
  • He fails to understand that Wikimedia projects exist solely to make the sum of all knowledge available to everyone without charge.{evidence and reasoning needed}
  • Moulton sees Wikimedia projects as drama engines.
  • He has engaged in ethically suspect practices by utilizing Wikiversity for experiments without contributor's consent. In the real world, this would be considered a civil rights violation.{evidence and review needed}
• The Community refuses to comment on any activity at Wikipedia, or take any such activity into consideration here.
• The Community has previously decided that the block implemented by Jimbo Wales should have been left to the Community.
• Notwithstanding the means of creation, the block of Moulton has been affirmed by the Community.1
• The Community is tired of spending time on this matter.
• The disruptive behavior of Moulton is condemned by the Community as a violation of core tenets.

[edit] Proposal

These options are separate.

1. Moulton will be unblocked subject to the following conditions.
   1. Prior to the block being lifted, Moulton must submit a writing plan detailing what productive activities he will undertake.
   2. Moulton shall also refrain from violating policy
2. Three mentors shall be appointed to oversee all Moulton related issues.
   1. Once every month, the mentors shall furnish a report to the community, detailing progress. The mentors will have all powers necessary to enforce restrictions.
   2. Decisions made by the mentors shall be considered final.
   3. The mentors will be authorized to take any action they deem necessary to remedy the situation, including ISP abuse reporting.
   4. These conditions shall be discharged upon agreement of all three mentors.

[edit] Discussion

Thoughts?Geo.plrd 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

All education is disruptive to some extent, since education tends to supplant current beliefs with revised beliefs that represent a deeper or more comprehensive understanding of the world we find ourselves embedded in.

I have never been community banned at any WMF-sponsored site. I have been indef-blocked on several occasions by corrupt admins who could have reliably predicted there would be no community consensus to overturn their block. This is a fairly standard (corrupt) practice in many WMF-sponsored sites. The community is deeply divided, as you can discover by reading the discussions, all of which are extensively documented on my talk pages.

I do not equate en:WP with en:WV. Rather I equate identical practices when they arise on both sites. Jimbo came into Wikiversity and introjected a corrosive and corrupt practice that (to the best of my knowledge) had not previously appeared in Wikiversity. In doing so, Jimbo has unwittingly converted what could have been an admirable Education Engine into a familiar (if tiresome and banal) Drama Engine, by reprising an anachronistic practice that is well known to generate passionate drama.

Jimbo's block has neither been upheld nor overturned. Jimbo's block has (predictably) divided the community, which is what H₁ predicted. Earlier today, Mike Umbricht stipulated H₁.

Blocking and silencing of peer scholars is simply not a sustainable practice for an authentic learning community, full stop. A considerably more appropriate and enlightened community regulatory process needs to be crafted and adopted.

Moulton 19:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want a more appropriate and enlightened process, why do you alienate those who could help you, rather than engaging in productive conversation? Geo.plrd 21:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add as a required condition for unblock that Moulton go an entire month without violating said block. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems a tad punitive. I would support prohibiting unblock until monitors are appointed. Geo.plrd 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If he chooses to be disruptive when he's blocked, I seriously don't expect him to do otherwise when unblocked. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny also pointed out that the "Mentors" element seems particularly demanding; if Mentors are going to be used, the work expected of them should be reduced significantly. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of the mentors are to keep this matter off the Community's plate. Geo.plrd 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're going to waste more time of valuable community members dealing with someone this disruptive at the best of times (and even moreso during the worst of times)? I think it is probably best to let everyone get on with building a stable and sustainable community and project. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no support from the community to unblock Moulton; see the comments in the first section of this review and the summary. --mikeu ^talk 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my question was rhetorical, intended to get the reader to draw that conclusion. I don't think this proposal is going anywhere; there is no support for unblocking. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment was general, and not a repsonse to yours. I tried to indent it to indicate I was responding to the top level question "thoughts?" --mikeu ^talk 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have nothing much to say except that I agree with Moulton being banned. This is a bit of a timesink for the project, and I suggest if he wishes to appeal his ban, he should do so via the Foundation or OTRS, rather than here on-wiki. This probably is going to go in a circular discussion, in my opinion... AC --Sunstar NW XP 10:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Ban of Moulton

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.