Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Moulton

Point of Order. Moulton should be notified about this community review on his user talk page. Also, Moulton should be allowed to freely participate on this page.

This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission.

Note: This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Note: This review is a work in progress. Note: Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. Note: Related review topics have been moved to separate pages:
 * Threats to the Wikiversity project‎
 * Outside interventions‎
 * Policy development‎
 * Many links were broken when these subpages (above) were created. If you click on a link and it does not take you to the correct page section, the link is no longer to the correct page.

Moulton
I don't know if this community review is following the Community Review Policy which seems intended to allow community discussion of "particular issues of contention on a case-by-case basis". I was asked to start a review for "problematic actions", which seems too wide-ranging to fit into one of the types of reviews listed in the policy. It has been suggested that this review might be fragmented, and I feel that it could usefully lead to several "Requests for clarifications" that would help move ahead needed policy development. I think this community review has already identified several bottlenecks in policy development that have been hampering Wikiversity.

I have been trying to keep this review centered on ideas for improving Wikiversity policies and procedures, but I have been trying to notify Wikiversity community members who are mentioned in this review. However, this is not a "user conflict" review. I would like to notify User:Moulton on his user talk page about the fact that he has been mentioned here, but I can't edit that page. This seems absurd, since Moulton is well aware of this review. As can be seen in the section below (Disruption of Wikiversity caused by blocking Moulton), some Wikiversity community members are frustrated that Moulton cannot freely participate at Wikiversity. I think it would be useful if a decision was made about Moulton's participation in this review. I don't think it is fair to make someone a subject of a community review unless they can freely participate. I'd like some feedback on these questions:

1) Since Moulton has been unblocked, can he participate here on this page? 2) Could Moulton participate in a more specific community review that would address just his participation at Wikiversity? 3) It is easy to exclude Wikiversity community members from participation at Wikiversity, including by means of out-of-process blocks and "locks" imposed without Wikiversity community consensus, but there is no defined way to return community members to full participation. Do we have to create a new policy that describes how a previously blocked user can return to full participation at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 21:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I am entitled to participant in Action Research to jointly solve the problems raised in these discussions. That's by the very definition of Action Research.  I have an unalienable right to participate.  Moulton 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Moulton's edits
Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and has now been unblocked. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". One Wikiversity Custodian has stated his intention to enforce the account lock and has been reverting Moulton's edits1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Can anyone explain the basis in Wikiversity policy for reverting Moulton's edits? --JWSchmidt 00:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we need to discuss if an account is unblocked locally but locked globally is it reasonable for good faith IP edits from the user in question to be allowed locally? Personally, I am comfortable with such edits remaining - but I am yet to look into WMF policy about global locks generally and Moulton's global lock more specifically - I've seen the global lock edit log but was there also any associated discussion on meta? Alternatively or in addition, do we want to have a community discussion about Moulton's block/unblock/detach account etc. in which Moulton can participate to help allow the community to consider the issues and perhaps unblock - more about this Request_custodian_action? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two currently active SUL locks of interest, the one of Moulton and the one of Thekohser. The one of Thekohser is a specially interesting example. Thekohser was declared "globally banned," unilaterally, by Jimbo in March of this year. However, that lock was removed when it was realized that local communities might wish to make their own decisions; when that was done, stewards went around to all the WMF wikis and blocked Thekohser individually. Then some of the wikis decided to unblock, and that was how it stood. But on May 30, Mike.lifeguard globally locked the account again, "per discussion." The venue of the discussion and who was involved remained unspecified when I asked Mike about it. I did check with another high-level functionary and found that there was some ... reputation ... for individual action there without community consensus. In any case, the events of March more or less established the precedent that local wikis could and should control their own process, Jimbo requested removal of almost all of the intrusive tools and no longer has the power to give them back to himself.


 * My point is that we have the power to unblock Thekohser or Moulton if we want to, and this was under discussion, when Darklama unblocked Moulton. Nobody has been willing to reblock, so, my conclusion is pretty simple. Moulton is not blocked, that is our local status quo. There is no precedent for local enforcement of a global block, it's a decision made at meta, usually for true "cross-wiki issues," such as massive vandalism. It's clear from the Steward's manual that the use of global locks to deal with critics of the WMF or marginal editing, civility, etc., is "off-label," specifically discouraged. If we want to bar Moulton from editing, we can and should block that account. The account, however, isn't blocked now. There are no policies against IP editing or using declared socks when one has a registered account and doesn't log into it. If Moulton is blocked, my understanding of policy has been that any admin can choose to enforce the block by blocking sock IP, and any editor may revert the edits of blocked editors on sight. (That is not the same as keeping them out completely, because any other editor may revert them back in by taking responsibility for them.) That's well established on Wikipedia and I see no reason to handle this differently here. --Abd 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been editing as an IP on Beta.Wikiversity.Org for a year and a half now. When MaxSem executed the SUL lock in December 2008, I not only had no advance warning, I had never even heard of such a feature in MediaWiki.  Nor do I have any idea who MaxSem is.  All that happened is that I would enter my login ID and password and not actually be logged in.  It just looked like some kind of glitch in the system, so I edited as an IP.  Sometime later, they must have changed the SUL lock to accept the login but deny editing.  Since I had given up trying to login, I didn't know until quite recently that it was now possible to log in (but then not be able to edit).  There was not only no discussion on Meta about my case (or Greg's), there wasn't even any disclosure (as far as I knew) about the operating characteristics of either the SUL lock or the Titleblacklist.  Someone (I forget who, but perhaps it was JWS) eventually tracked these down and found the log entries.  Note that I am here at the invitation of half a dozen resident scholars who have asked me to collaborate with them on specific learning projects that they have under way here.  For obvious reasons, I no longer consider myself to be a resident scholar here, but I do still pay my remaining colleagues a visit from time to time to collaborate with them on their unfinished learning projects here.  User:Moulton 01:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, a global account lock needs a reason such as massive vandalism of Wikimedia wiki projects. In Moulton's case, the "reason" was "enough is enough", an obvious sham excuse that does not meet the requirement for a valid lock action. Why would anyone enforce such an unjust "lock"? I think Wikiversity can and should rise above the underhanded methods that have been used to disrupt Moulton's scholarly participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 03:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Moulton Banned?


Ottava claims that he blocked Moulton because Moulton is banned, but he can provide no evidence to support his claim. I guess Adambro is still enforcing the absurd lock that was put on Moulton's account. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Some sysops have declared that they can unilaterally declare blocks and bans, regardless of what Wikiversity policy or community consensus says.

I want evidence that Moulton was banned, otherwise, the recently imposed block should be removed from his account. Adambro should stop enforcing the bad lock. --JWSchmidt 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the 21 July 2010 block imposed on User:Moulton a serious violation of Wikiversity policy which lists calling for unjustified blocks as a serious violation of the civility policy? "his attacks on others" <-- The blocking sysop has failed to provide evidence of "attacks". The recent block of User:Moulton looks like a bad block. There was no warning for the block, user talk page notification given, no chance for discussion or appeal. Why are sysops allowed to imposed blocks on Wikiversity community members without any due process or attempt at fairness? --JWSchmidt 13:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton was given 4 months of due process before Jimbo stepped in, and was blocked and warned repeatedly during that time. He has a copy of his old talk page. You have a copy of it. Stop pretending as if it never happened. It isn't becoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "his old talk page" <-- I was surprised to see you point in that direction. I spent time today looking at an archived copy of Moulton's user talk page and I found no discussion of a ban of Moulton. I also saw no reason for his talk page to be deleted, so if I missed something on it, please undelete the page and link this community review to the community discussion of a ban. Looking back at discussions from 2008, what I did see was three Wikipedians gaming the system and shouting hysterically in an effort to confuse and intimidate Wikiversity participants into unwise persecution of a Wikiversity community member. I wonder if it is embarrassment that led to the deletion of Moulton's talk page. Before Jimbo beamed into Wikiversity, Moulton had been blocked once for two hours. As far as I can tell, the warnings given to Moulton were all based on hysteria stirred up by three disruptive Wikipedians. I still want a link to the discussion where the community decided to ban Moulton. I don't believe that Moulton was ever community banned.


 * Here is my best guess of what happened in 2008. One of the Wikipedians who violated the Biographies of living persons policy, not satisfied to have imposed a bad block on Moulton's editing at Wikipedia, pursued Moulton to his personal website and viciously harassed Moulton. Moulton, rightfully defending himself against vile online harassment, posted to his blog the IP address of the person who harassed him. The IP address, linked to the bad behavior of the Wikipedian, had potentially damaging implications for the harasser. The next step was for the Wikipedia gang to pursue Moulton to Wikiversity and harass him here. They never bothered to explain to anyone that what had gotten their buddy in deep doo doo was his off-wiki harassment of Moulton. Unwilling to admit the real reason why they were seeking revenge against Moulton, the gang from Wikipedia finally found a way to persecute Moulton for his use of real names and one of them started pretending to be offended. When nobody at Wikiversity could be provoked into a bad block, Jimbo was called in. Bam!


 * "pretending as if it never happened" <-- I'm not pretending anything. Ottava Rima. Please provide a link to the Wikiversity community discussion of a ban...before everyone concludes that you are just pretending. --JWSchmidt 03:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Ottava Rima has not come forward with evidence to support the claim that Moulton was banned and that he has made attacks, I view Ottava's block of Moulton to be a serious violation of the civility policy. Ottava Rima, it is truly unfair to use the block tool to enforce your side of a personal dispute when no evidence has been produced in support of the accusations you made. Ottava Rima, either provide evidence or unblock Moulton. You can't block someone from participating at Wikiversity because he might not follow a rule from another website. Let Moulton help us develop a privacy policy that will both protect anonymous editors and protect living people from anonymous editors. --JWSchmidt 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 here or remove the block that you imposed on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 02:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikiversity caused by blocking Moulton
On the Colloquium, since 25 June 2010, I have made two relative proposals in effect, Colloquium and Colloquium. The former has been somewhat discussed only, whereas the latter none for two weeks since 2 July, when incidentally User:Abd and User:JWSchmidt began to discuss unblocking of User:Thekohser and later User:Moulton.

Now it turns out that Moulton has indeed wanted to talk with me, most likely regarding my proposals, and that he is highly well qualified and prepared to take them seriously enough, though most others may ignore or neglect them. JWSchmidt and perhaps a few others have tried but failed to have him unblocked. Even his desperate attempt to keep in touch with me was refused to the disadvantage of the proposals on the one hand, however consistently according to the relevant policy it may have been done on the other hand!

On these grounds, I dare to ask the WMF's authorities concerned to immediately unblock any blocked WV users who promise to do their best to help make any of my proposals a success. Otherwise, I cannot help but judge that the WMF would not only refuse but also obstruct my proposals to be embodied on the WV. This is an ultimatum.

-- KYPark [T] 07:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that User:Thekohser and User:Moulton should be unblocked and allowed to participate at Wikiversity. The banhammer only disrupts the Wikiversity mission. Enforcing bad blocks against Wikiversity community members violates the spirit of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 09:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Active listening.OGG|thumb|right|Audio made using [[Wikiversity:Teamspeak|Teamspeak]]. This is an example of using teamspeak for language learning (active listening). User:Moulton, User:Sundance Raphael and User:JWSchmidt can be heard.]]Moulton is a valuable Wikiversity community member and I am outraged by how he has been treated here at Wikiversity. Progress towards my learning goals has been disrupted since Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus. Even today Wikiversity continues to be censored by a rogue sysop who is disrupting Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. Not a single sysop will even attend to a routine Custodial task that would advance my learning goals. Why is Wikiversity under the boot of a few rogue sysops who disrupt learning at Wikiversity (and the #wikiversity-en chat channel) rather than facilitate the learning process? --JWSchmidt 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of trolling
Historically, Wikimedia functionaries have used the uncivil label "troll" to condemn Wikiversity community members. Such condemnations have often been followed by additional harassment and by bad blocks imposed without justification. User:Cormaggio has made these statements at Colloquium: "I believe JWSchmidt has been allowed to dominate such discussions by trolling" and "I don't know why some people are so keen to "rehabilitate" people like Moulton and Thekohser, both of whom have long track records of trolling". Cormaggio, please list examples of Moulton's trolling or retract your accusation that Moulton has a long track record of trolling. --JWSchmidt 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
Proposals for how to improve Wikiversity procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.

Some related proposals are on another page: see also: 8. Official policy on consensus, 9. Official policy on blocking
 * Rollback Policy Fix
 * Policy for IRC chat
 * Privacy Issues
 * Truth in Advertising
 * Vandalism
 * Page Deletion
 * CheckUser rules


 * There is another page for Policy development proposals‎

New Proposal
add you proposal here