User talk:Moulton/IDCab

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?

Regards,

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). "
 * 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:

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:

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

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)