User talk:KillerChihuahua

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello KillerChihuahua, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --mikeu talk 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not tamper with the testimony of another witness in a case.[edit]

Yesterday you undertook to engage in unauthorized editing of the certified testimonial accounts in a case to which you are a named party and potential respondent. You have an unalienable right to respond to any portions to which you take exception.

However, it is an egregious violation of protocol for an involved party in a case who has adopted an antagonistic and adversarial role to alter, redact,or otherwise tamper with the evidence filed in the case, especially if it's evidence or testimony adversarial to your interests filed by a plaintiff whom you have wronged and who is seeking scholarly peer review of your questionable editorial practices.

You may craft your own independent account or rebuttal in your own words (and respond thereafter to questions and cross examination per the protocols of Scholarly Ethics).

If you take issue with my account, you may also file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with me, and I will engage in good faith with you to reach a mutually agreeable understanding and wording of a jointly authored version of the case bearing both our bylines, signatures, and approvals.

Moulton 13:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WV:BOLD is official policy. Your "unauthorized" legalistic comments have no authority or weight here. KillerChihuahua 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose we take this unresolved issue to Action Research and/or the Wikiversity Review Board. —Moulton 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


I don't like fighting. I don't like disputes. I don't like cussing. I don't like excessive personal attacks. I don't like tension. I'm a book person. I tend to avoid human contact as much as possible. Books are slow. They don't attack you or criticize you. They are rather gentle, and easy to escape from. That said...

I wasn't there when everything "went down". I wasn't there when people talked about whatever about whoever. I don't know most of it, and I could not handle reading anything (if anything I've seen so far is indicative of the way it was before). I am not talking about you, or your actions, but, just, the way things have happened. I will get to why I am posting this to you later, but I think I need to say a few other things (so please bear with me).

I have a hard time talking to Moulton. I try real hard, but I have a hard time dealing with a lot of people. The reason why is that he is hell bent against many people. Perhaps I am unique, and that my horrible memory makes me unable to truly attribute momentary actions to a longstanding view of another person, but I am unable to understand grudges. Regardless, he was really upset (probably from personal connections) about Rosalind Picard's page, and believes that those who may have connected Picard to "Intelligent Design" are personally attacking her. Although there is a potential BLP issue (or was), Moulton felt that the only way to deal with the issue is not to personally talk to people, find out what is going on, and the rest, but to abrasively attack all he deemed were "responsible". Instead of taking my approach to the page (adding in a lot more content, directly citing quotes - which, by the way, were too close to the text not to be quoted - , and doing other such actions), he felt that the only responsible thing is to fight long enough to become blocked, then to continue a personal fight on Wikipedia Review. Unfortunately, there are many on the site that love to attack "the Man" whenever possible.

He believes those who are against him are part of a "Po-Mo theatre", or, as he explains, a post modern attempt to "orchestrate" some kind of theatrical like response by having colluded individuals acting in turn. He is unwilling to talk to you. He is also unwilling to see most of the people of the "cabal" as anything but those part of this above plot. I believe this is a defense mechanism. He entered into the "battle" for personal reasons, and took everything personally. He does not believe that there is anything good that is part of Wikipedia. I am disheartened whenever he talks to me, because my experience (blocked many times, of course) is "similar" but obviously quite different in how I perceive things.

I've tried to show how he could focus on talking about ethics and greater ideas, but he always returns to attacking people. He is almost like an animal pinned in a corner and unable or unwilling to accept the presence of those nearby. I feel that he is slowly dragging JW into this corner, and the two only trust each other. I tried to ask him to talk to you, and it failed. He sees you as an enemy. He is unwilling to see you as a human. It is probably a defense mechanism. However, he wont really listen to me, and it took a lot of effort to calm him down from outright attacking Jimbo via email.

But heres where it boils down - he wont listen to me, nor will he take any of my advice. I asked him to try and be friendly, to directly talk to people and discuss issues. To not play "war" and the like. Anyway, so, this is what I see: there are two possibilities. 1) Salmon, you, whoever, fights with Moulton and everyone is unhappy until something big happens (and who knows what will happen if it gets out of control). 2) You try to talk to Moulton and try to discuss things with him. It will take a lot of work, a lot of patience, and probably cause you some problems. However, it might actually calm him down and allow him to recover his senses.

I don't know. I asked him a simple question (Do you want my help or am I just here for you to rant to?) after he refused to listen to me when I asked him to try and treat people like humans and not to think of them as part of "Po-Mo theatre" who are out to get him. He refused to answer. I told him I could not talk to him unless he answered in the affirmative, and he refused to. I do not enjoy being ranted at, nor do I enjoy rants. They upset me (as you can see from the first paragraph as to why).

I apologize for the length of this, and the disrupted stream of conscious rambling. I have no real conclusion, but I also had no real introduction. Here's to hoping that you can make sense of any of this. Ottava Rima 00:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not against people. I am against corrupt practices. As long as the individuals in question continue to engage in and defend the corrupt and unethical practices of the allied editors of the WikiClique on ID, I will relentlessly call them out on it. If any of them decide to eschew and abandon those unbecoming, unprofessional, unethical, and atrociously corrupt practices and sincerely turn over a new leaf, I will be among the first to celebrate their conversion to a more professional, more responsible, and more becoming demeanor. —Moulton 10:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
What precise specific complaint do you have against me, Moulton? No lumping me in with some "clique", making all guilty for the actions of one; what specific thing(s) have I ever done that you consider a poor action, or a "corrupt practice"? KillerChihuahua 11:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I presented my complaints to you here, back in early December of last year...
  • Try again. No pasting old crap which has "asking Arbcom" this, etc. One thing, eh? No excessive verbosity about your views on Post Modern theatre, it has no bearing and I dont care what you think of theatre. Name, and do try to be concise and succinct, one thing you wish to resolve with me. Can you do that? KillerChihuahua 12:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My specific complaint is that you have consistently failed to attend to, address, or respond to specific complaints, dating back for more than a year now. —Moulton 13:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually addressed a plainly worded question to me, you'd have gotten a response. As it is, you have pasted huge screeds accusing imaginary "cliques" and "cabals" of all manner of wrongdoing; you have attacked me, maligned me, and been in general a thoroughly rude and obnoxious person towards me. Has it occured to you that your approach is guaranteed to earn you not answers, but contempt? I have requested one complaint here, and you have finally managed to simply phrase one complaint: hey presto, you have an answer. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, from what I can tell, there are a handful of people that, after his block, did not talk to him about the issue. He is upset at those who he fought with in the Picard matter, and those who would not talk to him afterwards. However, that matter would be superficial, at least in terms of how you could "fix" it. I think he mostly wants to discuss with people (and I would place you at the top of the list, since he frequently mentions you) how he feels that there are some BLP issues on Wikipedia. He believes that the encyclopedia is completely damaged by the Picard incident, and was upset that people would connect her to Intelligent Design, because he feels that it would make her seem less of a scientist. Moulton knows Picard, and he took it as a great offense. I will not speak for him, but this is just a little bit to clarify what I can see. Ottava Rima 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Odd that he is so hateful to me, then, as I had never edited the Picard article at that time, didn't participate in the Rfc except doing general housekeeping (formatting, moving inappropriate commentary to the talk page, etc) until I closed it, and attempted to help him (on his talk page) understand how the Rfc process works and how to respond. My one and only edit to the w:Rosalind Picard article, in May 2008[1] was a style-related period removal as requested on the talk page when the page was protected. He seems to save his most caustic vitriol towards those who are forced, by his ignoring all the good advice he's given, into limiting his disruption by blocking or banning him. I'm reminded of Ant's observation #15. Or perhaps #39 applies, either way, although I feel sorry for Moulton's inability to work well with others unless he gets to make all the rules, I don't feel sorry enough for him to want him around disrupting any of the Wikimedia projects. KillerChihuahua 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, with permission from others, I have decided to run the project on Moulton's talk page. After he is done, I would like to put together a review process for a few days. Since this block, there may need to be an additional learning project. I hope to set it up where (if Moulton is willing), he can demonstrate to the community his ability to understand processes and to discuss things. I would like you as an observer during this. I don't think anyone will be willing to overturn Jimbo's block until Moulton has proven beyond a doubt that he can work with all people (I stress all) without disruption on his part. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello. If you have experience in wikipedia, you may find that wikiversity is by its very nature exploratory, and we are willing to confront problems. People can express their ideas and we can compare them.

May I also suggest that it is more efficient to keep edit summaries edit summaries and use talk page for discussion.

Enjoy your exploration! Hillgentleman|Talk 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's three day trial[edit]

I have posted this on multiple pages - Please see this. I would like to try and have Moulton work on this task and have him refrain from the escalating actions. I would ask that you monitor but respect Moulton's work at this time, and take any complaints or concerns directly to me. There will be a peer review process at the end, and I believe that this process will be most effective after he is complete and in the manner that I put forth. I am requesting that Moulton only edit on this project during this time, and I would like if you could show him the courtesy in not furthering any dispute with him until after the process is over, and that we are all able to discuss this project. If that is too much to ask for, please contact me, and I will see how I can accommodate your needs. Thank you, and please pass the word to any that I may have forgotten and this may pertain to. Ottava Rima 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With the caveat that I reserve the right to edit my talk page as I see fit, I will be happy to comply with your request. Good luck, and let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. KillerChihuahua 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course! I only mean to not edit Moulton's projects right now, as I don't want him to get distracted. This project is intended to encourage him to think about the big picture, express himself in a more accurate and effective manner, to formulate ideas about the project, and to then follow up with a community discussion and response. I don't want him to get distracted or bogged down. :) Ottava Rima 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As per Jimbo, my project has been canceled. Ottava Rima 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request[edit]

I have just informed the nominator here that the two entries listed are the two previous subsections under Request for Deletion. I would ask that you instead remove your vote and vote in the two previous deletion request entries (or simply move it). Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a merge, then an un-merge? WTH? I suggest you all figure out what you're doing. I suggest also that the entire Ethics project be allowed to stand, whether un-merged or not. I didn't add it; I did support it; and if the nominator, were the only two who felt it should go then so be it, but how did it get removed without a decision? feh. KillerChihuahua 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you were talking about. I am merely pointing out that the entries you voted on were already put up by the creator of the pages above, and that since these were put up first, that you should fill in the previous area. You can duplicate your vote if you want. If your above comments are not about the subpages being listed for deletion, then I am not sure what you are referring to. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I see what happened, and I restored and removed only the two duplicates. I've been scanning from history pages and I didn't notice what happened at first. Please check and see if I missed anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Movement of Comments from Moulton's talk page[edit]

This is to give notice that, with Moulton's permission, I moved the section "Comments" from his talk page. It has been moved to this place. This is to allow the conversation to continue, but also to give Moulton a chance to continue on his project with the least amount of disturbances. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I left this message on all parties involved, so that they all know where it is. I would move it to a subpage, but I was concerned this may be viewed as "hiding" it. The main concern is that Moulton's talk page does not fill up during this time, and to also encourage him to stay on his assigned task. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I wanted to thank you for some recent archiving work. It helps. Also, isn't it odd that I tend to be the only one talking on this page? lol Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Sorry it took me so long to figure out how to do it here. KillerChihuahua 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


  • I was under the impression he'd said using his r/n was ok, but don't remember where I thought I saw that.

You were also under the impression that I had no interest in writing an encyclopedia. I have no idea where you got that haphazard theory of mind, but you used it to justify an indefinite block without community review.

And then, for reasons that I am at a loss to explain, that error on your part somehow magically became a community ban.

Would you be kind enough to undo that error, as well?


Moulton 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you refer to phrasing that is in the block verbiage, which cannot be edited by me, and is never edited in any case; so your request is pointless. Secondly, I refer you to Wikipedia:Not being here to build an encyclopedia; the phrase was at one time common shorthand, and was at times on the blocking policy page, the five pillars page, and elsewhere. It is not a "theory" but was a common shorthand phrase for the type problem for which your community ban was enacted. Nor was it in any way an error, it was implementation of a community ban as called for in an Rfc on your behavior, as has been bourne out by other admins in various venues, including block review and an ANI discussion, ArbCom, and Wikimedia legal counsel. I believe the areas which specifically address the behavior highlighted at your Rfc which are described under NOTHERE would include General pattern of disruptive behavior and Little or no interest in working collaboratively. Thirdly, I remind you that although I was the admin who implemented the ban, "The fact is that Moulton was indefinitely blocked after an RfC; his block was posted to WP:AN/I for comment; he appealed through numerous channels, from emailing various admins to unblock-en-l to Mike Godwin to ArbCom; and all of those lines of appeal were rejected. That was a legitimate and transparent block, according to Wikipedia's current standards - it was not unilateral, or unreviewed, or underhanded, or nefariously contrived by a handful of evil people, and anyone suggesting that it was is either ignorant of the facts or twisting this case to pursue a wider agenda (or both). "[2]
Fourthly, I remind you that not only was ArbCom unanimous in upholding the ban, their comments are dismissive of you offering any value to the encyclopedia at all, which bears out the summary quite well:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)
  • Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) The RFC is clear enough and Moulton brings nothing additional to this RFAR.
  • Reject; nothing here that indicates potential for improved behavior. Kirill 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Multi-venue annoyance. --jpgordon???? 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Nothing here leads me to believe that anything will improve. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per Josh, Kirill. James F. (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per Kirill. FloNight (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In short, there was no error, and no "correction" is forthcoming. KillerChihuahua 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The "matter" before ArbCom was not an unblock request. The matter before ArbCom was to answer the question of whether I had been afforded due process. ArbCom declined to answer the question. In a later review, three respected Wikipedians, including a former member of ArbCom conceded that I had not been afforded due process. Lar added that WP doesn't even have a concept of due process, and that the kind of corrupt practice that I had encountered at the hands of IDCab was commonplace in Wikipedia. That's why WAS 4.250 and I came to Wikiversity to introduce the concept of ethics into the culture. As you know, ArbCom finally had to start addressing the issue of rampant corruption. And one of the first things ArbCom did was to find your associate, Paul Mitchell, guilty of abuse of power and making "meritless accusations" against other editors. You were part and parcel of that practice, and I am calling you out on it. —Moulton 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
KC, I apologize for being unable to directly handle this matter, because I was recently desysopped precisely because I tried to address disruption here. I'm doing what I can as an ordinary user. The problem is, what JWSchmidt has called the Hostile Takeover, which took place in 2008, and which was repeated in 2010 to an extent, left the Wikiversity community badly damaged and unable to address local disruption, almost the opposite of what some intended. I'm very concerned that massive incivility, clear violations of policy, and what was called "trolling" with unusual accuracy for that term (often misapplied to mean "editing I don't like), are now allowed to continue far beyond obvious reason for interdiction. I've attempted to steer a middle path, allowing some level of "wiki studies," but when it comes to dealing with individual editor histories, ethical issues are raised, and guidelines for that are essential before it continues anywhere on WMF wikis.
If there is no local attention properly forthcoming, I intend to go to meta and request steward intervention. I'm fully aware of the difficulties with this, and fear the implications for the future of Wikiversity. The Wikiversity community has been badly damaged by the allowance of continued disruption, it is driving away many who would otherwise participate here, and Wikiversity has a very important role to play in the overall WMF structure, long term. It is a place where original research is allowed, where topics can be explored in depth, where POV-pushing becomes, overall, far more difficult, because of inclusive policies. But without behavioral guidelines, it simply will not work.
Please feel free to contact me on my Talk page or by email. I have no position on the past history of IDCab or any of that, other than being generally sympathetic to Moulton's complaints about "cabals" on Wikipedia, because I've experienced this up close and personal. But everything in its place, and Wikiversity is not the place to Right These Wrongs. --Abd 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; I appreciate your efforts, and the difficult position you find yourself in. Please let me know if I can do anything to assist. At this point, I don't know how to proceed, so simply knowing that someone is taking my concerns seriously is heartening. KillerChihuahua 21:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I will let you know if there is something I think useful. I'm gratified that the fact of my attention is some kind of comfort. As to the "offer" below, it would be up to SBJ to approach you, not Moulton, and the "negotiation" would take place in neutral territory. I used to do this kind of thing in my user space on Wikipedia. I was good at it, but I was taking on much less difficult situations, for example, a naive professor and a young student who were revert warring over The Usual. I was able to bring them to be wikifriends, with differing roles. It really didn't take much. That's what ArbComm prohibited with their MYOB ban ... never mind! Just some of my own past. Neutral space, maybe SBJ's user space. In no way do I suggest you need to do this. It's just an option. Nor do I recommend SBJ as mediator, either. However, you can consider it. I think he means well.
Meanwhile, if you don't want Moulton editing your Talk page, I suggest you tell him so. Undoing his edits won't accomplish anything, unless he revert wars over them, as he did with JoshuaZ. He may still end up blocked over that. Again, up to you. --Abd 01:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
My last request to Moulton had an opposite effect. It resulted in his not merely ignoring my request, but actually increasing the volume of the behavior to which I objected - by quite a bit - so you'll forgive me if I don't repeat the error. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
As you may be aware, SBJ has offered to mediate the long-festering dispute between us, stemming from your actions of 9/11/07. I told SBJ that would work with him in his role as a mediator. —Moulton 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Not only am I no aware of such an offer, your link does not lead to such a post by SBJ. It leads to your failed attempt to have ArbCom overturn your community ban. KillerChihuahua 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediated discussion regarding past events between you and Moulton[edit]

Hiya KC,

I set up a page here so that perhaps you two can resolve at least the personal aspects of this dispute, since it seems they're not going to go away. The moderation instructions are at the top, I'll mostly just be watching unless there appears to be a logjam or mis-communication. --SB_Johnny talk 17:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I will watch that page, KC, and will comment on the attached Talk if I feel that some intervention is needed. Your participation there is voluntary, as I assume you would know. SBJ has implied otherwise, but you could delegate your participation there to someone who would proxy for you, someone you'd trust to ask you if there are questions needing answer from you, or to make reasonable recommendations to you if action on your part should be required. All you would do, should you decide to do this, is to formally appoint with a signed edit, a proxy willing to accept. The proxy would not have the power to bind you without your consent, but might present to you some negotiated agreement, thus saving you the time and aggravation of participating in argument with Moulton. Or, of course, you may participate directly at any time! --Abd 17:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Your eyes are appreciated, as are you comments ad observations. I will consider the proxy idea; it has a lot of merit and I had not thought of that. For now the scope parameters and reason for the page have not even been delineated. KillerChihuahua 12:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


FYI, discussion of WV:Privacy is continued here: Wikiversity_talk:Privacy_policy#Referencing_published_authors --mikeu talk 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion re probation for Wikiversity.[edit]

I had occasion to notice your suggestion, during the attempt to close Wikiversity last year, for probation.[3][4]. I think you were basically correct, but as to what might apply to the current situation, I would modify it.

I see no examples of serious abuse by present custodians, therefore removing custodianship under a probation would not make sense. The problem is one of inaction rather than action. Rather, it would seem, there might need to be a panel of new administrators, formed from experienced Wikimedia sysops, who would deal with cross-wiki or other issues that are properly outside the issue of merely local control of content and behavior. I'm not sure that this is necessary, though, since nearly all continuing disruption is the result of a single user, a user who is already under global lock, originally placed for "cross-wiki disruption," as I recall, in 2008. The issues were the same then, though not necessarily so clear, they were mixed up with what was sometimes perceived as legitimate criticism of the WMF.

It was an historical accident, possibly the result of intention to damage Wikiversity, that this user was recently unblocked, and so, while there is definitely a kind of crisis at Wikiversity from apparent custodian inattention, it might be enough to immediately seek a relock of the account, requiring, then, 'crat action (for the renaming trick) or sysop action (for ordinary user whitelisting exemption from global lock), in order for the user to edit.

Because this does leave local control in place, it's probably superior to more direct intervention. If it comes to pass that a local custodian ignores cross-wiki problems and effectively unlocks, this custodian is then responsible and could be called upon to defend or reverse the action. Your thoughts would be appreciated, but I also understand if you stay away from this mess. --Abd 16:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)