User talk:SB Johnny/Killerchihuahua and Moulton

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Truth and reconciliation[edit]

So, what is the deal? Does the squeaky wheel get some grease? If I make enough noise do I get some obscure page where I can ask questions about the absurd blocks that have been imposed on me by disruptive sysops like SB Johnny and the role that abusive sysops like KillerChihuahua have played, and continue to play, in disrupting the Wikiversity community? Or, if I make enough noise, do I get the standard Ruling Party treatment of censorship, blocks and bans? What about all the other honest Wikiversity community members who have been driven away from this learning community since the Hostile Takeover? Do they just quietly slip into history while more sociopaths are recruited and installed as misguided sysops who will continue the the reign of terror that has disrupted Wikiversity since 2008? --JWSchmidt 13:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Ruling Party (whoever they might be), but I offered Moulton to act as a mediator because he's proven to me that he has a lot to offer, and I also happen to be on pretty good terms with KC. I wouldn't make the same offer to you (JWS), because you don't seem to have anything to offer (aside from bile, vitriol, and desperate calls for pity). --SB_Johnny talk 21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, JWS provided a valuable independent analysis of the corrupt practices of IDCab, for which he paid a dear price at the hands of the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse. I, for one, would like to see a peaceable and gracious Truth and Reconciliation Process to resolve that festering wound. —Moulton 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As the Party Head you should put it on the main page: "If you want to participate at Wikiversity you have to offer me something". Or is that only posted in the secret back channel where off-wiki deals are cut among those who disrupt Wikiversity and terrorize honest Wikiversity participants? In my case, the "something" was clearly stated long ago: I am to fuck off and leave Wikiversity. Sure, your lackeys allow you to disrupt Wikiversity and drive away honest Wikiversity participants and they back you up with censorship, bad block by absurd ban, but like all despots you cannot escape from the truth. I did not include you in the community review that I was asked to create last Summer because I thought you had slithered away from Wikiversity after Jimbo bashed you with his toy banhammer. Now that you are back and continuing to disrupt Wikiversity I will continue to study and probe your abusive behavior and write about the vast harm that you have done to Wikiversity. In the end the only thing that tyrants seem to slink away with is the bile that their abusive behavior stimulated other people to vomit forth. --JWSchmidt 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • John's persistent state of indignation is unmistakable evidence of the failure of the community to remedy the atrocious indignities visited upon him two and a half years ago in the wake of a notorious episode of the corrupt exercise of raw political power that demonstrably sundered and undeniably crippled the community. He deserves to have his dignity restored by means of a sincere Truth and Reconciliation Process, because the inevitable alternative medicine is simply too atrocious live with. —Moulton 10:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd doing....what he does[edit]

KillerChihuahua, meet JWS, our resident crank, who still thinks it's 2008. One would think WV history was full of banned editors. I'm trying to think of any. We unblocked the two most notable ones, and JWS and Moulton aren't blocked at this point. The bulk of the disruption I've seen lately, since the mess of early 2010, has been your rants, JWS, until Ottava and Moulton eclipsed you, and I know that your comments, as well as theirs, are driving away some segment of scholars. In any case, SBJ did request we tone it down here and not comment in this -- even on this Talk page -- unless absolutely necessary. There is a reason for that. Couldn't you have put this on Talk:SBJ, or are you deliberately trying to poke KC with a claim that she's abusive? Please don't! Let Moulton and KC work this out, with SBJ's guidance. They deserve a chance. (I'm putting this here so that KC knows there is attention to this. I will not respond further here unless some new and important reason comes up.) --Abd 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd, I suppose it is frustrating for you to have lost your toy banhammer, but I don't understand why it is apparently so very hard for you to stand by and watch people try to have free and open discussions of the horrors that have been inflicted upon peaceful collaborative learners at Wikiversity. Abd, you might not care about the people who have been harassed, sickened and driven away from Wikiversity by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries like yourself, KC and SBJ, but I do. Abd, it appears that you are either clueless about many of the past Wikiversity horrors or of a mind set that leads you to believe the horrors are "business as usual". In either case, please don't disrupt attempts to move this community towards a Truth and Reconciliation process that could return Wikiversity to its peaceful roots of the days before Jimbo facilitated a Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity. I commented on this talk page because I wanted to learn the answers to some questions. Abd, can you understand that a Wikiversity community member might be motivated by a desire to learn and use Wikiversity as a place of collaborative learning? --JWSchmidt 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The time has come," the Walrus said, "to speak of many things: abuse and snits and searing whacks, and clipping IDCab's wings." —Albatross —07:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Policy on Biographies of Living Persons[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by:

  1. Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;
  2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest;
  3. Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems;
  4. Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same.

In the context of this mediation, I would urge the parties to scrupulously adhere to item #4 above, especially when an aggrieved party has lodged a complaint of false and defamatory characterization of living persons by allied teams of authors, some of whom have notably published such false characterizations in the pages of Wikipedia, Meta, and Wikiversity.

Moulton 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Aborted dialogue salvaged from KillerChihuahua's local talk page[edit]

The following unfinished dialogue originally took place on KillerChihuahua's local talk page:

Regarding User:KillerChihuahua of IDCab ...

  • 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). "[1]
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 not 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)

The offer from SBJ is in e-mail to you. The link to my request to ArbCom was not a request to overturn anything. It was a request to adjudge whether I had been afforded due process. Here is what I asked of ArbCom:

Statement by Moulton

I am asking ArbCom to review whether responsible admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath afforded me diligent and conscientious due process, without regard to the whether the final outcome would have been justified by a fair exercise of due process.

ArbCom was perfectly aware the RfC was a sham, and so declined to answer my question. Later, Sam Korn conceded it was a sham and that I had not been afforded due process. Sam Korn wrote:

Furthermore, he is aggrieved that "due process" was not afforded him (he frames this as "I am not sure whether due process was afforded me, and so whether my treatment was systemic or accidental"). My impression is that this is, to a certain extent, true. The move from the RFC to an indefinite ban (I hold the distinction between an indefinite ban and an indefinite block without immediate prospect of unblocking to be spurious) was out of order. Indefinite bans should not be handed out so incautiously -- they are a big deal and they should be given with proper consideration. You should be very careful when considering a user in whose good faith there is no particular reason to doubt. The process by which it was affirmed was rather dodgy -- the brief conversation on w:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton and a brief conversation on ANI were rather cursory (admittedly through no fault of the participants).

Frankly, I also think the Arbitration Committee got this one pretty badly wrong.


Moulton indicates that what he wants is some kind of statement that due process was not afforded. This is a problem because Wikipedia is not focused on due process -- and rightly so. What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right".

Lar and Dave Souza echoed Sam Korn's conclusion. GRBerry said, "I strongly believe that the original outcome was incorrect," adding:

The original block and the RFC are quite problematic, because the articles he was accused of whitewashing or otherwise inappropriately editing were at the time egregious violations of our policies, most importantly WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV.

Then, as you know, your partner in this sham was rebuked by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power and making "meritless accusations against other editors."

The time has come to resolve this issue and correct the long-festering injustices.

Moulton 23:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on development of this mediation[edit]

KC's response. Moulton has, in fact, stated his "number one grievance" clearly, if mixed with a lot of blame; such mixture is common beginning a mediation. The grievance is that KC blocked Moulton. Moulton provides a link to her expression of the decision. Moulton also complains or implicitly alleges misconduct about what she allegedly did not do. This could be broken down into a simple series of specific allegations. But that KC blocked Moulton is not in dispute.

Wiki actions are not infrequently correct, but with defective justifications having been given. Looking at the decision KC made, I'm struck by it being the result of an RfC. In theory, RfC is an attempt to negotiate agreement, RfC was not designed to determine bans, for example. I've seen quite a few exceptions, where the effect was a ban.

I've argued for stated restrictions, managed bans as a substitute for indef blocks. Blocks, then, would result from ongoing assessment of compliance with stated restrictions, with the fact of the ban and its legitimacy being considered in appeal process. An indef block largely interrupts any possible negotiation. From my experience with Moulton, the likelihood of success with stated restrictions is low, and he may, in fact, prefer being banned. But that is another issue. This process should take his complaint seriously.

It is possible that Moulton's dedicated "outsider" status resulted from the insult he felt over KC's action. KC, I'm hoping, will be able to step back from defending her action, just enough to see how it may have appeared to Moulton, and some others. The kind of action KC took is common on Wikipedia, and frequently people see nothing wrong with it. Until it happens to them.

I was, myself, first blocked (as to a serious block) with somewhat similar arguments, i.e., that I was allegedly not interested in contributing to an encyclopedia. That wasn't true, I was very much interested in the project, and in contributing, but saw my most important role as different from simply writing articles or wikignoming, which, valuable as it is, is only part of what's needed. I did not, however, take the "rejection" personally, and was able, in fact, to later negotiate resolution of the "dispute" with the two admins most involved. I got an apology, actually. A real one, voluntarily given.

Moulton's "desired outcome," however, is far too complex to address yet. I suggest simply exploring the complaint, in its details. KC, you were asked some questions by SBJ that you could answer. If the questions incorporate incorrect assumptions, you can correct them. I agree with you, you should not have to guess about the "desired outcome," and it may be that a true and satisfactory outcome would not be what anyone expects at this time. --Abd 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Idol Thoughts[edit]

I'm not seeing how my trying to guess Moulton's thoughts is going to be in any way helpful. Let him speak for himself; if he cannot mange clarity and brevity then we can ask him until we are certain his meaning is clear to us. But a guessing game would be counter productive. KillerChihuahua 16:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes have they and they see not.
Ears have they but they listen not.
Brains have they but they think not.
Hearts have they, but they care not.

Caprice 03:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the way to encourage KC to participate, Moulton. The opposite. You will get what you make. --Abd 03:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Encourage KC to engage in collaborative learning and joint problem-solving? Surely you jest. —Caprice 03:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. You will get what you make. Treat people with respect, you might find that they will communicate with you. Ridicule, blame, and attempt to humiliate them, what do you expect? --Abd 03:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Um... A dopamine high? —Caprice 03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued thoughts[edit]

Today, Moulton wrote on the attached mediation page, KC, I am unclear on what your objectives are here. Could you briefly and clearly state what your objectives are here at Wikiversity in general and in this mediation process in particular. Specifically, are you here for collaborative learning and joint problem-solving? If not, please clarify what you are here for.

KC returned to comment at Wikiversity recently, with [2], in which she protested "outing" edits by Moulton. This mediation was started by SBJ with This page is for Moulton to ask questions of KillerChihuahua (KC for short)‎ regarding her part in his being blocked on the English Wikipedia several years ago, and likewise for KC to ask questions of Moulton regarding his own actions.

KC is, on the face, only here to deal with the immediate dispute, and KC was not asking for this, to my knowledge. So she has been here to cooperate with what SBJ set up, that's clear. She last responded yesterday, but Moulton has been claiming that she's not cooperating. I see the reverse. I see that Moulton has not cooperated with SBJ's instructions, is displaying impatience over a process that has been over three years coming, and that apparently has been attempted before with similar results. Moulton was dealing with a collection of Wikipedia administrators who were sometimes less than forthcoming, who were, sometimes, themselves, impatient and ready to act impulsively. But others who acted with sober consideration. There are some simple questions to be asked, and, hopefully, answered, but Moulton, as is common, makes everything into a great war between Good and Evil. KC came here to defend her name, to stop what could aid stalkers. She was under no obligation to agree to any process here, since, even if it should be true that she improperly blocked Moulton years ago, that action long ago became moot by his continued behavior. SBJ, if you are not willing to guide Moulton more closely in this process, I'd say it's doomed, and is just putting off the day. --Abd 19:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  • KillerChihuahua is welcome to come here to defend her name, even though she declared that I was not welcome on WP to defend my name or the names of Rosalind Picard, James Tour, and a number of other distinguished academics whom IDCab had egregiously defamed, libeled, and grossly inconvenienced. —Moulton 19:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You became unwelcome on Wikipedia because you had abused Wikipedia process and editors. I recommend anyone trying to understand this situation read w:User:Filll/Moultonunblock. It appears that the way Moulton interacted with the Wikipedia community may have damaged the Picard article, rather than improving it. I wish I had read that page before attempting to help Moulton return to participation here (though I did see that caution was in order, I did not support unblocking Moulton without restriction, and Moulton was not willing to abide by voluntary restrictions, or I'd have been able to arrange unblock sooner). It was all tried before. In the permanent link) current discussion with AGK et al], we can see an unwillingness to understand Wikipedia and to work in cooperation with the community. --Abd 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
KC has apparently been the target of Moulton because of her close of the RfC on Moulton with an indef block, see her justification at [3]. That has been presented in cherry-picked form by Moulton to emphasize what he wishes to ridicule, but this was simply a close, confirming the comments of many editors, and was followed by consultation with AN/I. At AN/I, there were six editors confirming the block, including a number who claimed to have attempted to help him previously. True or not, this was an effective community ban, which Moulton did not appeal through normal process. I once tested what would happen with a block I thought defective, by waiting to put up an unblock template for a week. I had reason to believe that there were admins willing to unblock, would they intervene for "justice"? No. They were waiting for an unblock template. Once I put one up, a hostile -- or clueless -- admin declined it and was then overruled by another, based on argument that the community would accept. That's how a wiki community works. Moulton wanted something else, but was, and remains, completely clueless about how to create it, other than by making as much fuss and disruption as possible. It must have worked for him, some time in the distant past, so he keeps trying. --Abd 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)