User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/jul

User:Abd's probationary custodianship
Just a reminder that the 4-week probationary period is up (7/7/10). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think with the current issues at the moment, it is not the time yet to put up a full custodianship request - how he handles the current matter will affect how people determine his competence. By starting prematurely. Does that make sense? If not, I have no problem with it going into discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be reviewed any time. However, note that at no point has my mentor or other administrator asked me to cease any activity. I'd have come to a screeching halt if that had happened. The current matter is a difficult, long-term problem, and, to my recollection, no action I've taken using tools has been reversed other than as the normal process whereby administrative action settles, and what I've done has seemed to enjoy reasonable consensus, which is always my goal. As a user, I have my own opinions, and they can be strong. But as an admin, I'm a servant of the consensus. I've been very careful, actually, trying to act minimally, while still creating possible openings to heal old wounds -- or validating and verifying that the status quo is actually consensus.


 * As an example of caution, I did not block JWSchmidt, even though I saw cause. Since I filed the Request for Custodian Action that is pending, I've considered myself unblocking JWS, possibly with conditions, because that is at this moment an apparent consensus there (unblock, proceeding to Community Review), and closing that discussion. But, hey, Ottava, we seem to be running out of admins. Diego might do something, he's not been involved with JWS yet.


 * What I've seen here since I became an admin is an unexpectedly high level of operational consensus. It's largely delinked from the past and what has happened elsewhere. I see all of the currently active admins as being willing to consider opposing views and to make compromises to find cooperative consensus. Part of the problem with JWS has been his insistence that abuse is continuing, coupled with very specific blaming of the situation on a specific admin, though he's not terribly explicit, it can be pinned down to that, with only a general implication that everyone else is "dishonest," when nobody is being particularly oppressive, the ongoing reversion of Moulton IP edits is routine -- and should be addressed directly when we are ready; it's the status quo until then. Adambro seems to be willing to disregard recusal policy (i.e., a policy we should have if we don't have it yet), but it's not that he's doing outrageous stuff other than that; it's a problem because it inflames self-righteous anger to be blocked by an admin when one is in dispute with that admin, but all this can be discussed as we set policy, with the participation and consent of the community.


 * I have been acting exactly as I'd act had my adminship been "permanent." --Abd 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

About Moulton/Caprice
Ottava, you are very involved with Moulton. He's trolling, seeking to provoke you into acting outside what should be recusal policy. Please don't threaten to block him, i.e., Caprice, unless that account specifically is used for abuse, and, in that case, I highly recommend, absent a true emergency, that you request action from another custodian. If he's done what he knows Caprice should not do, what he knows is unacceptable to the community even on his own Talk page, you wil get immediate action, without raising any new questions about "abuse" or a mere appearance of same. Just don't let it be Adambro! That would be worse.

Allow the behaviors of the "two editors," i.e., Caprice and Moulton, to be delinked. There is a very important reason for this, and insisting that Moulton confine himself to Caprice or Caprice will be blocked defeats the purpose of allowing Caprice in the first place. It is not to coerce Moulton into stopping his IP commentary, and, as long as he does not (again) use the Caprice account to violate crucial norms (such as "outing"), blocking that account would be punitive. We cannot prevent IP edits, and if we block Caprice for no Caprice misbehavior, we are falling into his designed trap. Rather, I see Caprice as a trial, so to speak. Is Moulton capable of cooperative behavior when not coerced? Will he use this channel for cooperation as he claimed he wanted to (i.e., to cooperate with Geoff Plourde)?

Consider that there is a war going on, a war some of us inherited and would rather not continue. The war, like most wars, does far more damage than good. I did not open up Caprice, Diego did, and my own opinion was that it was premature. If it's truly premature, then we'll find out soon enough. But for now, for a day at least, Caprice seems to be behaving, leaving open the possibility of the use of the Caprice account for cooperation or what is harmless at worst. Politically, his bluff has been called, but the purpose, as far as I'm concerned, is not to humiliate or "defeat" him, that is his game definition, not mine.

Please consider Caprice as a privileged space, a sanctuary, as it were, a place where a truce is in effect. Outside, the war continues until we find a better way. If we make the place of truce just another battleground in the war, we close possible doors of resolution. Don't arrest the emissary of the other side, give that emissary safe conduct to and from the place of truce. That's the common law of war, and it exists for very good and fundamental reasons. --Abd 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton is a globally banned user. There is no recuse policy with that. I did not reblock his talk page or shut down his other account. Any using of IPs to get around a block is blockable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not assert, Ottava, that you violated any policy. You showed restraint on that, as you note, you did not use your tools with Caprice when Caprice was trolling you. As it happened, I have now reblocked Caprice, and would only consider reversing my decision on that if Moulton positively promises to refrain from using the Caprice account for further disruption -- or "exposure of corruption" as he describes it. There is really no such thing as a global ban, however. There are stewards with the ability to globally lock accounts so that a user cannot log in. That's a form of block, and it applies to an account, not a user, per se, it is not a ban (the stewards manual implies that it should only be used under extreme conditions; the Moulton lock was old, but the recent ones for Thekohser were apparently done without consensus and possibly against it, -- or with some kind of secret agreement, the steward was singularly unclear -- but who pays attention?) There are semantic subtleties here that aren't worth debating at this time, because it's moot. Caprice is blocked because Caprice violated the "offered truce." Simple. This was not an additional offense, because Caprice never promised to restrain himself, that was the error that Diego made, unblocking without obtaining a cooperative agreement, though, to be sure, I don't know what transpired in their off-wiki conversation. I do think Diego was disappointed. Perhaps he will comment.
 * As part of this sequence, I verified that, in fact, the WV block of Moulton, in 2008, was for good cause, by reviewing evidence provided by Moulton. Complicated story, and moot at this point. It is ancient history, or should be; what was important to me was to try to find out if the block should continue. It should, and this has nothing to do with Jimbo Wales, stewards, the events of 2008, but only with Moulton and the present Wikiversity community. Our right to responsible self-determination was my concern, not some particular outcome. --Abd 05:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never stated one way or another if the block from 2008 was correct. I have always taken the stance that I would enforce the block until I was able to get Moulton to stop what I saw as the two behaviors that led to the block. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, just because something should be done does not mean it can be done. Barry can not be prevented from playing the wiki game. But perhaps you enjoy your avatar's use of the ban-hammer, in which case I think you both are quite silly. WAS 4.250 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He can continue playing with sock puppets and the rest all he wants. I just ask that he uses user names instead of real names and that he stops dwelling so much on the "ID cabal" from 2008. That whole thing is dead and gone so there is no real point. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is totally reasonable. Unfortunately, Barry appears to have decided to be An_Unreasonable_Man George Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - WAS 4.250 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Joke) The Rima gang of avatars stops the Moulton avatar, forces him out of his car, draws a circle on the ground, orders him to stay in the circle, then uses bats to destroy the car. When they are done, they turn around to see Moulton laughing uncontrollably, and say we just destroyed your car so why are you laughing. Moulton is laughing so hard he can barely get the words out: "I stepped out of the circle three times!!!" (/Joke) - WAS 4.250 15:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly get the joke. As to this being some kind of commentary on the present situation:
 * There is no "Rima gang."
 * Imagining that Moulton wanted help, Rima offered to perform a service if Moulton would agree to a certain condition. Moulton then started burbling here and elsewhere about ultimatums and bullies. No ultimatum was issued, only a positive, if this then this.
 * No car has been destroyed. And especially not with bats. I've seen nobody here perplexed about Moulton laughing. Moulton is doing what he's said he'd do, and is quite transparent.
 * A circle was created, that part is accurate. The circle, User talk:Caprice, was intended as a sanctuary for open communication between Moulton and the community. Various people understood it in different ways, though, some thinking that Moulton was asking to be unblocked. If he did, that was private with Diego Grez, who drew the circle and who has no visible connection with Rima. Grez opened the circle, then when Moulton used it for other than the allowed purpose, specifically to troll Rima for outgraged response, which didn't actually happen, Grez blocked Moulton. Adambro, quite independently, took certain largely irrelevant actions, and has continued enforcing the block by dealing with IP edits by Moulton. Adambro just blocked JWSchmidt, for related disruption, continued for a long time. Rima vigorously opposed that. The "Rima gang," then, must simply be seen as "Wikiversity administrative consensus," which is not functioning as a cabal. Some of us are open to some kind of rapprochment with Moulton, some not. Increasingly not, and not because of any kow-towing to Jimbo or meta, but for our own understanding of the welfare of the community. I see no sadistic usage of the block tool, from any administrator. I do see some technically inappropriate usage, from time to time, but that's normal in a wiki.
 * Ottava, above, is "asking" that Moulton follow what appears to be an almost universal present operating consensus that "outing" not be practiced. Moulton has deliberately used outing to get himself reverted and blocked, in order to then be able to claim that he's being censored and bullied. In fact, he's the bully, and he has been for a long time. That's what I found when I followed up on evidence Moulton provided re the situation. He abused those who approached him with good faith, including Jimbo. We (that is, the rebels) imagine that somehow Jimbo is Power and that therefore there is some special merit in berating and attempting to humiliate him, "speaking Truth to Power." Jimbo's power is quite limited, as it should be, and as he probably wants it to be, long term. Jimbo actually made the same request to Moulton as Ottava did above, and he did so privately, and with respect and courtesy. Moulton pissed in his face, so to speak. Absolutely, Moulton had previously confronted some serious abuse. But he didn't know, and apparently still doesn't know, when and where to stop. So, for now, this is the end of the story. I see nothing new or useful coming from him. --Abd 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, just let him say his peace. You don't need to respond. Moulton is Moulton, and I am I. You don't need to worry about my relationship with Moulton so much. There are other things to care about. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
Notice: You are part of a Wikiversity community review. --JWSchmidt 10:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim about a ban
Please explain how this is disruptive. I've repeatedly asked you for evidence that Moulton was banned and you claim that I already know. I do not know. Ottava Rima, Please link to the community discussion where Moulton was banned. --JWSchmidt 14:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton on Beta
As you may be aware, JWS on Beta has taken action to detach Moulton's account to get around the global lock which has enabled him to now log in and edit there. I'm worried that may be inviting Moulton to use Beta beyond its scope and take conflicts from en to Beta but more specifically, I noticed a recent edit to your talk page there. I just wondered whether you were aware of that. It seems to relate to a comment you made in 2008 inviting him to participate in a trial research project. It isn't immediately obvious whether that invitation is still open so I thought if you weren't already aware, you might wish to review that recent edit. Regards. Adambro 22:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was content from Moulton's deleted user talk page, fyi. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Community review topic
Ottava Rima, why was Moulton singled out for his use of real world names when others such as KillerChihuahua were allowed to make statements such as "My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him." (see this discussion)? Ottava Rima, is it not true that the decision to ban Moulton from Wikiversity was made in secret, off wiki by just a few people? Ottava Rima, were you part of the secret off-wiki discussions where a few people decided to impose a ban on Moulton? Ottava Rima, is it true that Moulton was never community banned? Ottava Rima, please either respond at the community review or remove the block that you imposed on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 02:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton has his own community that he can do whatever he wants with. If we are really so unjust here, why do you still bother to edit? Why not let those who are astray stay that way and go help those who can be helped? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moulton has his own community that he can do whatever he wants with" <-- Moulton is a valued member of the Wikiversity community, but I would not go as far as to say that he can do what ever he wants. There are one or two small problems in his way. "why do you still bother to edit?" <-- Ottava Rima, have you ever heard this, "|If it's not okay, it's not the end"? "those who are astray" <-- I don't think I've ever used the word "astray"...who do you think is astray? "help those who can be helped" <-- Is that what was going on here? --JWSchmidt 08:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton is not a member of our community, valued or not. He has his own community. Go there and be with him where it is just and free. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moulon is no a member of our communiy" <-- Maybe User:Moulon Rouge will be created soon. --JWSchmidt 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "t" on my keyboard hasn't been working. That should have been obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)