Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's block/Archive

Procedural Matter
Closed The start of this subsection has been struck out by the user who brought it up. There have been no further comments in one week, and since the original nom considers the issue addressed, I'll archive it now. If there any further concerns, please open a new section. --mikeu talk 14:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to amend the above matter and focus on a broader issue, the role of Jimbo. What power should he have. He is not an active member of this community, and arbitrary actions seem to make us subject to his will, a violation of academic freedom. Geo.plrd 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) The community has addressed the issue of Jimbo making the block. Geo.plrd 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you detail your involvement with "Arbcab," your multiple rejected bids for admin/MedCab on en.wp, your sanction for providing legal advice re. MyWikiBiz, what Zoe, Quiddity and ^demon have determined your motiviations were for your various en.wp edits, along with your involvement in "Esperanza" and the disruptive recreation of such? Inquring minds want to know exactly how much drama you intend to bring here before someone makes you stop. Why aren't you out powertripping at Conservapedia, exactly? Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I was under the impression that this is Wikiversity? If I am mistaken, please let me know. Geo.plrd 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you also comment on your invasion of User:H's privacy (I believe you were banned from en.wp over this), as it's especially relevent to this matter. Salmon of Doubt 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the mistake Daniel made? He thought another user was me and made an honest mistake. Geo.plrd 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And how is any of that relevant, Salmon? If you have a problem with what Geo.plrd is doing, why not address that, rather than attempt to poison the well? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's only poisoning the well if it's unrelated. Geoff's consistant actions to create disruptive bureaucracy and then attempt join it in a position of power is exactly what we have here. It's laughable. Salmon of Doubt 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Salmon, you are spinning discussion away from the pressing issue of a bad precedent. For general information, here is what I have done here. I revamped a dormant department and am working on a survey course of US history? What is so bureaucratic about that? Geo.plrd 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocking disruptive influences with a minimum of your inflamed bureaucracy is not a bad precedent. You are spimming discussion away from the pressing issue of your three year long abuse of process and sockpuppetry. Salmon of Doubt 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Salmon, while Geo may hold a minority view here at Community Review, his contributions at Wikiversity which I have noticed have been thus far constructive. I do not think it is appropriate to be attacking him for his actions at other pages here.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If Geo, a consumate bureaucratic warrior, were arguing for anything but more bureaucratic nonsense, that would be true. Salmon of Doubt 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you ignoring his other constructive contributions at Wikiversity recently? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Beyond the damage he's causing here, I am deeply concerned that a high school junior (16 years old, for those not in the US) whose most substantial contribution to the public discourse is at "conservapedia," widely seen as anti-historical and a polemical far-rightist institution of disinformation intends to be the "INSTRUCTOR" in a "survey of the history of the United States of America, taught at the college level." Luckily, Wikiversity is the university that everyone can edit - when he attempts to inform us that Uncle Roy Cohn was a GREAT MAN WHO DID NOT DIE OF AIDS AND WAS CERTAINLY NO HOMOSEXUAL, I'll be right there to remind everyone that that's nonsense. Salmon of Doubt 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you are ignoring his other constructive contributions. Please be aware, Salmon, that right now you appear to be engaging in outing, and you are without question being very rude.  I know a few teenagers with enough understanding of American History to be able to teach many others about elements of it, including myself, and I hold a degree in History.  As you are not involved at the School of History at all, I do not see how you consider yourself to be in any position to judge who should or should not contribute there.  I do not see Geo doing "any damage" on Wikiversity.  Apart from his disagreement with you on this page, can you point out any other specific examples of "damage" he has done on Wikiversity?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be engaging in "outing" if I revealed anything at all about Geoff that was non public or even remotely hidden. It is, however, not. Geoff reveals his name here. He talks about Conservapedia here. He reveals his age here. This is all public. I look foward to Geoff to not damaging wikiversity any further. Salmon of Doubt 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your actions are still very hostile and rude. And you have ignored my other comments and concerns.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unnecessarily rude and hostile behavior is certainly not any improvement over advocating unnecessary bureaucracy.  A simple argument would have been far better than dragging up what I still consider irrelevant history. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Salmon, please back off. We'll deal with issues and activity that happen here in Wikiversity - I've tried to address the issue Geoff brings up, as have others. Cormaggio talk 09:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'm done here. Salmon of Doubt 12:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Geoff: Jimbo acted as he very occasionally does, and in the same way as all stewards occasionally do: intervening in (often) unprecedented circumstances, and where the community is either non-existent, or damaged, or where there could be a danger of serious community damage. I think the 'precedent' we should be discussing here is action which had not been explicitly discussed in a community forum - not whether Jimbo has any authority here. The key issue is whether we, as a community, have policies and procedures in place to deal with problems when they arise - which, when working within Wikimedia's broad mission, would mean that Jimbo, or any steward, or Wikimedia agent would never have to intervene. Cormaggio talk 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than attempt to tell Jimbo what to do, it would be wiser and more effective just to make his intervention unnecessary in the future. This page seems to be a move to create a more appropriate place to discuss the less cut-and-dried issues that will arise now and then. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)