User talk:Salmon of Doubt/Archive 2

1-week restriction
Hi Moulton, Salmon of Doubt. You two are getting out of hand, and before it really gets out of hand, I'm imposing two minor restrictions on each of you. This isn't intended to stifle your ability to add content, but rather to keep things from getting truly untenable, because you're both getting way too personal about this. Here's the rules: Moulton has had 6+ weeks to work on his study, Salmon of Doubt should have at least some time to collect and relay his thoughts unperturbed. Salmon of Doubt will be expected to accept lists of questions added to his narrative by other users -- including Moulton -- after the week is up.
 * 1) You will not edit one another's talk pages, period.
 * 2) You will not edit the "case study" that the other person initiated.

This has teeth, guys. If you break those rules, you'll be indefblocked until we've had some time to discuss and agree upon further ground rules. Just give each other a week to cool off and get some work done: there's no deadline here, and there's lots of work to do. --SB_Johnny talk 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had already agreed to an arangement with WAS that is more substantial than this. Salmon of Doubt 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong support
I strongly support SB_Johnny's action. I think you both should cool off from the interpersonal clash, and focus on generating a narrative of the case in question, which you can use for further discussion. You don't need to work together for the moment; you don't even need to read the other's narrative (though, obviously, you can do both if you like) - but you should focus on what you want to achieve in addressing this case, and what kinds of resources would help this process. I think it's safe to say that no-one wants to see any more disdainful comments and/or edit warring from either of you. Cormaggio talk 11:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. Salmon of Doubt 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ethics questions
Salmon of Doubt, you have been using "the "Scholarly ethics" template (at User:Salmon of Doubt) which says, "This editor will respond to all questions about the ethical caliber of their contributions on their talk page." I have some questions.

The " " template says "This editor does not condone illegal, deceptive, or otherwise unethical practices". On the day you started editing at Wikiversity you put on your user page a statement about User:Moulton. Since then, you have had a significant amount of interaction with Moulton; editing the same Wikiversity pages, participating together in conversations on Wikiversity discussion pages. Yesterday you said, "I could obviously use technical means to ban Moulton from any page I wanted to. I am more than proficient enough with Pywikibot to make that happen. I suspect that would quickly lead to Moulton and myself being blocked - and let me make this as clear as I can - I would have no problem at all with just banning the both of us."

question 1. Why is it ethically sound for you to express approval of the idea that Moulton might be blocked....are you editing here at Wikiversity with the intention of getting Moulton blocked?

question 2. Does the statement about Moulton placed on your user page provide information to the Wikiversity community about your past interactions with Moulton and your reasons for trying to get Moulton blocked from editing Wikiversity? Are you telling us that you are here to get Moulton blocked and doing this because of your past experiences with Moulton at Wikipedia? Do I have that right? Is that ethically sound behavior for a Wikiversity participant?

question 3. Is your use of the commentary on your user page deceptive? Does the existence of that Wikipedia request for comment on Moulton mean that Moulton did something wrong at Wikipedia? Alternatively, was that request for comments on Moulton created as a pretext for imposing an unjustified indefinite duration block on Moulton? Wasn't Moulton blocked because he (in compliance with Wikipedia policy) tried to correct biased Wikipedia biographies and got into a conflict with other editors who had claimed ownership of the pages and who prevented Moulton from correcting the bias? Isn't your portrayal of Moulton (on your user page) deceptive and unethical?

--JWSchmidt 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I beleive that there is a universal principal that all actions should be taken to help the wellbeing of the largest number of people in them most effective way, and thus that ethical use of this site is use that contributes to educating the largest number of people in the most effective way. I believe the greatest educational benefit to the greatest number of people would be achieved if Moulton were able to edit this project, in line with it's mission, without dirupting it. Currently, I do not believe he is doing so, nor do I believe there is a reasonable posibility that he will ever be able to do so. Whilst I am doing so, I believe that the loss to this project of my contributions would be more than offset by the gain to the project if Moulton's negative contributions were eliminated.
 * 2) I have had no substantial past interactions with Moulton. Your assumptions about my motives and desires are incorrect, and thus your questions, which assume facts not in evidence, are unanswerable.
 * 3) My use of the template is not deceptive. The existance of the RFC does not indicate he did something wrong - it was his unethical actions at Wikipedia that are evidenced in the RFC. The RFC was created to attempt to get Moulton to act ethically. Moulton was blocked at Wikipedia for disrupting it's mission to inform the largest number of people effectively, an unethical act. At no point did Moulton attempt to correct biased Wikipedia biographies, nor did he get into conflict with editors who claimed ownership of anything. My portrayal of Moulton on my userpage is accurate and ethical.


 * I must also request that you review WV:AGF. Salmon of Doubt 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies to my questions (above). If you think I am not following the policy Assume Good Faith, then please explain your reasoning that leads you to that conclusion. I assume very little, but I do formulate hypotheses and test them. Part of the process that supports Assume Good Faith is asking other editors to explain their editing, so please view my questions as an integral part of my adherence to Assume Good Faith. It is interesting that you "have had no substantial past interactions with Moulton", yet you come to Wikiversity and on your first day here post this commentary about him on your user page. Since it retains a prominent spot on your user page and since you have said "I do not believe it is possible for myself and Moulton to reach agreement on anything", I am interest to learn reasons for such a fundamental disagreement with your fellow Wikiversity participant. I have been researching the history of Wikipedia's Rosalind Picard article and other related articles (see Wikimedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation). Have you looked at Moulton's edits to the Rosalind Picard article? For example, isn't this edit in compliance with Wikipedia policy which says, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." The removed article section "Darwin dissenter" (which almost constituted the entire article) was a labeling of Rosalind Picard as a "Darwin dissenter". In contrast to that biased mis-labeling of Picard that Moulton removed from the article, the current version of the article has a section called "Religion and science" which is better and does not try to call her a "Darwin dissenter". The statement that she agreed to was, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Isn't it ethically correct for Wikipedia to actually just describe what she agreed with rather than try to claim (with no evidence) that she supports how the discovery institute later portrayed that statement (as a dissent From Darwinism)? Moulton tried to correct bias in Wikipedia biographies and his attempt, rather than being welcomed, was rebuffed and he was blocked for "Disruptive POV". Isn't there something wrong when a good faith attempt to fix biased Wikipedia biographies gets "dealt with" by a block for disruptive POV? You say there was no ownership of the Picard article, but my review of the page histories indicates that there has been a prolonged effort to prevent multiple editors from fixing Rosalind Picard and related articles. Do you really think that Moulton has been treated fairly by Wikipedia? If Wikipedia was wrong in how it dealt with Moulton, is it right for you to come here and repeat Wikipedia's error? Since we seem to see this matter quite differently I think we are going to have to carefully review the evidence and sort out who's thinking is off track. --JWSchmidt 06:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not require substantial interactions to have done substantial review of Moulton's contributions. I have done substantial review of Moulton's contributions. My believe that Moulton and I will never reach agreement is based apon his history of disrupting online communities and my history of not doing so. That edit does not removed unsourced defamatory material. The material removed is sourced. What it does is whitewash something that could perhaps have been more artfully phrased. Moulton believes Picard is not a Darwin dissenter - however, she has never stated such in a verifiable way, and she signed a petition now used by the ID movement to cast doubt on Evolution and a reliable source has stated that her believes "sounds similar to ... intelligent design." Moulton was not blocked for "Disruptive POV." Moulton was blocked for "repeated personal attacks," for being a "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia," and for "Personal attacks, outing other editors." You are correct that the article is better now (due in no part to Moulton). Moulton's attempts to edit Wikipedia while perhaps in good faith (I do not necessarily believe this to be true - I find it also possible that Moulton is a supporter of the religion Intelligent Design, attempting to support his religion in a stealth manner), were disruptive to the goal of informing. People do not have the "right" to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia is more likely to inform people if Moulton is blocked. Thus, he is blocked. I believe Moulton was treated fairly by Wikipedia. I do not believe a series of editors, however, were treated fairly by Moulton, who went out of his way to harass them directly or by proxy. Salmon of Doubt 10:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I now have a much better understanding of your motivations. Based on my research, I think the fundamental problem at the Wikipedia article about Dr. Picard is that it was started by -and has been owned by- editors who made the simplistic and mistaken assumption thateveryone who is "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" and calls for "examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory"must automatically be "anti-evolution and a "Darwin dissenter".That is a mistaken assumption invented by a few Wikipedia editors. Rather than write accurate and complete biographical article about Picard, those misguided Wikipedians had a single purpose....to brand people like Picard with a label ("anti-evolution or "Darwin dissenter") and link them to the discovery institute even when they had no evidence to support their mistaken assumption or to support a correspondence in thinking between Picard and the discovery institute. When challenged about their error, these mistaken editors would not listen to other editors who tried to explain the error they had made. Rather than listen to reason and learn and fix their error, they cried, "conflict of interest," and "whitewash" and "disruptive POV" and everything else they could think of. Met with such a response (which represents a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy) most good faith editors just leave and spread the word that Wikipedia is a cesspool. Moulton took the time to persist, earning his blocks for daring to challenge the misinformed bullies who has claimed ownership of the Picard article. Its really sickening stuff. I hope we can work together to study and explore the fundamental difference in approach to editing Wikipedia biographies of living persons articles that has in the past and still continues to animate discussions about the Picard article. Please don't start calling me an advocate of intelligent design just because I tell you that you are wrong about how Moulton thinks about intelligent design. You should try talking to him and LISTEN rather than adhere to false assumptions. Please don't call me a white-washer just because I am trying to remove absurd original research that has been introduced into Wikipedia by mistaken Wikipedia editors. Please don't call me anti-evolution, anti-science and anti-Darwin just because I make the point that many scientists are skeptical about the power of Darwinian natural selection to account for everything we see in the biosphere. Please do not try to include me in the abusive campaign to exclude and hound editors who are trying in good faith to adhere to Wikipedia policy by removing false and biased information from Wikipedia articles. I'm particularly concerned about two problems: 1) Wikipedians who believe they can insert mistaken and unsubstantiated biases into Wikipedia biographical articles as long as there is no published source that contradicts their erroneous thinking. 2) Wikipedia policy explicitly calls for Wikipedian's to welcome editors who are fixing errors in articles. That some Wikipedians instead harass and drive away such contributors is incredibly damaging to Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia administrators who treat good faith editors like unwanted vandals are a plague on Wikiversity. I have in the past, and will continue in the future, to join the Wikipedia community in demoting such rogue administrators and repairing the damage that they have caused to the project. I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that Moulton is welcome to edit at Wikiversity. In the end, even the Church could not silence the voice of reason and a few misguided editors at Wikipedia certainly cannot silence the truth either. I'll continue to assume good faith...I assume that you are here at Wikiversity to learn and help us build a scholarly learning environment. I hope we can work together to smooth out the continuing conflict between people who think Moulton is evil and people who think all Moulton did was fall into an open sewer at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

archiving talk pages
In this edit you removed current discussions to an archive page. I can't imagine why you are archiving an active discussion thread. Please explain your thinking and move the recent talk page comments back to the talk page. Thanks. --JWSchmidt 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to return any discussions you think were active and productive to the page. Salmon of Doubt 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You provided me with no reason for moving that active talk page content. I have not read the page you archived and I have no idea if you might have a reason for moving the content. Your edit summary and your reply to my question (above) do not explain why you archived an active discussion thread, so we have to go through this again. I'm asking a second time: why did you archive an active discussion? I suggest that if you ever again want to archive an active discussion thread for some reason, first discuss your actions with other editors. Your edit summary indicates that you imagine you can perform any type of edit since "its a wiki". That reasoning is wrong. Think about how your editing will impact on other editors and do not make edits that will cause disruption for other editors. I see from the page history that several people such as Cormaggio have recently edited that talk page. Do you really think that folks like Cormaggio want to go searching for their recent discussions in archive pages? --JWSchmidt 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I archived the page to stop the relentless edit war that was the only thing being discussed on the page. All of the participants on the talk page are seasoned wiki veterans who know how to unarchive things if they want. I believe in w:WP:BRD (in the absence of obviously wrong reverts), so I'll take actions I think are good and wait for them to be reverted before discussing. Salmon of Doubt 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "the relentless edit war that was the only thing being discussed on the page" <-- I just spent a few minutes reading some of the archived talk page contents. Your description of the page contents does not match what I see. The first thing on the page is "Should we do case studies on specific management anomalies arising in connection with the initiation and development of this learning project?" This is a reasonable topic of discussion and seems to still be relevant to editors of the Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies page. You archived Hillgentleman's very useful request, "If we are to study cases in wikimedia, please use real, actual, concrete cases; and simple ones are easier to understand for beginners." and also his recent comment, "Please be aware that the learning project has just begun. It would be much more effective to focus on past, simple, concrete cases, draw some conclusions and lessons from them". I see no justification for your placing these discussions on the archive page. Please move them back to the talk page. I cannot understand why you are trying to claim that your archiving of comments such as those by Hillgentleman was appropriate. You seem to think that if you do not want to see a particular discussion topic on that page then you can archive the discussion. Is that your claim? I do not understand how your archiving of these discussion threads will "stop the relentless edit war". Can you explain what you mean?  --JWSchmidt 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to return any discussions you think were active and productive to the page. I will no longer respond to your assumptions of bad faith ("You seem to think that if you do not want to see a particular discussion topic on that page then you can archive the discussion.") Salmon of Doubt 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to clean up your messes, unless you want me to treat you like a vandal. Since you seem to be looking for excuses for how not to continue discussing this matter I'll just ask you nicely not to perform any archiving of active discussions in the future. If you feel the urge to edit war, please find another diversion besides archiving other people's active discussions. --JWSchmidt 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day salm...
I thought I'd swing by to let you know an idea I've had... I'm planning to try a fairly major re-jig of the ethics project structure, because I think it's become rather messy and a bit confused... I obviously won't touch the pages you've indicated you're working on, but I didn't want my editing to confuse or annoy you in the mean time..... hope that's cool :-) Privatemusings 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your changes are excellent. Salmon of Doubt 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) Privatemusings 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to write you about Privatemusings, actually. Would you be willing to give him some feedback on his "case study"? He's definitely worth supporting, IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 00:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No more edit warring
No more edit warring. Privatemusings is cleaning up the mess caused by your edit warring. I will not accept you messing up our project pages again with your censorship of other's contributions. You may add all the content you wish. You may not delete other's contributions on the project resource pages. If you do, I will ask that you be indef blocked for continued disruption. I would rather you did not delete or archive on talk pages, but Moulton insists on causing drama and you have a right to respond to his unethical attacks on talk pages. WAS 4.250 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can ask for whatever you want. I will respect others contributions when they respect mine. Salmon of Doubt 00:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, please cut it out. I'll block at WAS's request, if it comes to that, but I really would rather do it the good way. Moulton has a record of listening to advice, reflecting on his actions, and always trying to improve himself and the community. Your record ain't so good, so far :-). --SB_Johnny talk 00:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is true, please request that Moulton stop engaging in infantile dramas designed to educate me, and that he cease signing his contribution deceptively, and that he cease logging out to make contributions from his IP address. Salmon of Doubt 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll ask him. --SB_Johnny talk 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But you won't make it stick, will you? Salmon of Doubt 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Salmon of Doubt, you user page pretty much looks like your sole purpose here is to cause drama with Mouton regardless of how much you believe the disruption aspect. JWSchmidt has brought up good points in his investigation that should not be dismissed lightly. Under the investigation noted above, you made the comment: "I do not believe a series of editors, however, were treated fairly by Moulton, who went out of his way to harass them directly or by proxy." I have not seen Moulton try to go out of his way to harass or "out" you here on Wikiversity. I have only seen responses to provocation. Your user page is one initiation of such provocation, and I haven't seen that change. I look at Mouton's user page, and I don't see him to have mentioned you. I suggest you take the content that is on your user page and move it somewhere more appropriate to a "case" subpage, and stop "engaging in infantile dramas designed to educate me" on your user page. Dzonatas 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Joan of Arc vandal. Salmon of Doubt 18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

channels for communication
Imagine a day (maybe 5 years from now) when someone reads something you wrote at Wikiversity and wants to contact you. When I started to think about a way to allow editing outside of NPOV rules I thought it would make sense for editors to activate the "email this user" system for their user account. My thinking was that people often drift away from wikis and become difficult to reach. Would you be willing to activate your Wikiversity "email this user" feature in your preferences? --JWSchmidt 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be active already. Salmon of Doubt 21:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)