User talk:Caprice/Clue Train

Abd, at the top of your personal user page, you have prominently posted this template: 

 In view of your avowed commitment to Scholarly Ethics, please complete your as-yet-unfinished responses to the following incompleted discussion thread:

No rangeblocks
No rangeblocks just for one editor, Abd. Precisely why the Wikimedia Foundation cautions against such practice is because it affects a wide range of other users along with just Moulton, and is primarily used as a last resort against frequent IP-address socking. Do you understand what it is, and how it could adversely affect other users other than just Moulton? TeleComNasSprVen 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. TCNSV, I have not asked for Range Blocks. Did you notice what was done the last time, Moulton was blocked, a few days ago? Massive range blocks. Basically, TCNSV, you are clueless. Range blocks will be used if a custodian thinks them necessary. I'm monitoring activity and may inform or advise. I'm not asking for your advice, but you are free to offer it to the custodians. Just as I am. --Abd 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then monitor, and don't give him any ideas with doling out unnecessary extraneous comments. Like this one it gives the appearance that you support rangeblocks, chastising SB_Johnny for not taking the appropriate measures levied against him. TeleComNasSprVen 06:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There, you've asked for a rangeblock! It will have adverse affects on other users sharing Moulton's range. Why are you so opposed to blocking Draubb's school whilst at the same time advocating for a rangeblock of someone else? Your analysis often seems inconsistent with your practice. TeleComNasSprVen 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The disruption caused by Draubb is trivial, compared to that caused by Moulton. If you want Draubb's school blocked, go to RCA and request it. Show the problem. Look like the vengeful idiot that you are. *Draubb is not blocked. You think Draubb's school IP should be blocked? Without the user being blocked? Why?


 * Something is seriously off, TCNSV, this makes no sense at all. Moulton is *blocked.* If he revert wars, he's making it impossible to tolerate his block evasion. First of all, I've not asked for a range block, yet, only if Moulton makes it necessary. I've asked for a block of a single IP. I don't think you have any concept of how to handle a situation, except by going to meta and implying massive vandalism, or the risk of same, when nothing is happening. That really took the cake.


 * Stay away from my Talk page, you are a waste of time. --Abd 05:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Truthout Issue
Note: This thread was originally posted on Darklama's page.


 * I have an idea, Abd. Why don't you go running to Darkmama and ask her to dictate what passes for truth. —Palomino of Certainty 17:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My position, Moulton, is that custodians should not be placed in the position of determining "truth," as to "outside reality." They need only look at the edits themselves, or at the edits and verified complaints, possibly. "Dictate" is your reframing for any determination regarding a situation, when, on wikis, generally, nobody "dictates," but people do act for themselves, and sometimes structure has been set up that does, collectively, dictate. Management (i.e, ownership) may also dictate, but technically, they cannot compel wiki users to do anything. They may merely assert legal control. Get it straight, Moulton, you've been confused about all this for years. --Abd 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * by the way, I brought this to Darklama instead of RCA, because Darklama had "touched" your edit, so I wouldn't revert it, for example. I am, generally, only acting with reverts to enforce a block, or to prevent outing, but not to tendentiously edit with respect to other editors in good standing. --Abd 18:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to a complaint from JWS, Custodians are placed in the awkward position of having to give a valid reason for a block. They aren't supposed to just make up a haphazard (and demonstrably false) reason out of whole cloth.  Do you agree with JWS that the reason for a block has to at least be a true statement on its own, whether or not it's also a statement that, if true, would amount to a violation of some policy?  —Moulton 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're asking me on DL's talk page? She may remove this if she wants. Custodians may block, giving no reason at all. However, if they do this more than infrequently, their competence to continue might be questioned. "Making up a haphazard and demonstrably false reason out of whole cloth, by definition, would indicate serious bias, and if your condition is true, the custodian would properly be deysopped. However, making an error in judgment, without the intention implied in your conditions, is not necessarily a problem, because it's a wiki and almost everything can be fixed. You claim that nothing can be fixed ("Moulton's law") but that is an error in judgment. Nothing can be fixed if no significant elements of the community, particularly the administrative community, wants to fix it. They can, on a wiki, look the other way. They are not employees of the "state." They have no specific obligations, they are volunteers in everything they do. The solution to a community with administrators who "oppress" by looking the other way is more administrators who won't look the other way, but, as you know, if an oligarchy has developed, it resists change. Still, with individual admins who demonstrate clear bias in use of tools, it's quite possible to desysop. It's just difficult, not for the inexperienced or highly reactive, and possibly not worth the effort and cost. --Abd 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's astonishingly difficult. Look at how hard it was for Charles Ainsworth to bring charges against FeloniousMonk for his abuses on Wikipedia.  And look how hard it was for ArbCom to adjudicate the case.  Now, as you may know, it was FeloniousMonk who called upon Jimbo to come here to block me, per Jimbo's threat to do just that, over the issue of the silly song parodies on my personal blog lampooning IDCab. Now Jimbo unilaterally declared that those song parodies, posted off-wiki on my own obscure and little-read blog amounted to a violation of Civility here on Wikiversity.  Don't you think the community here should decide whether silly song parodies, posted off-wiki on an obscure and little-noted personal blog are a sufficient cause of action for the God-King to come galumphing in here, against the will of the community, to personally execute blocks without due process?  Is it an objectively true statement that those song parodies, posted off-wiki amount to a violation of the local Civility policy?—Moulton 21:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)