Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton

Status of User:Moulton
I think we need to revisit this issue, since Barry's status here is a bit blurry and at least one user clearly wants the block undone. --SB_Johnny talk 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Background
For those unfamiliar with what's going on here, here's the nutshell history:
 * Barry (User:Moulton) was indefblocked from Wikipedia, and felt that the block was an abuse of power on the part of the blocking admin(s).
 * He then tried to begin an investigation of this on meta, but apparently was told that Wikiversity would be a more appropriate venue.
 * After arriving on Wikiversity, he and a few others worked on a learning project called Ethical Management of the English Wikipedia (since renamed to Wikimedia Ethics), where he laid out the history of his "case", in the context of the ethics of how Wikipedians resolved content disputes.
 * In addition to his work on Wikiversity, he also created a number of blog pages and engaged in email correspondence with a number of Wikipedians, including members of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales.
 * Some of his postings -- both here on Wikiversity and on his blogs -- included naming Wikipedia contributors who wanted to remain pseudonymous, and posting private correspondence. He was told repeatedly and by a number of users to refrain from doing that on Wikiversity, and at one point I (SB_Johnny) blocked him for 2 hours since he did this several times in a short period (this was the only time he was blocked by a local Custodian).
 * Eventually, Jimbo Wales decided that this was unacceptable, and indefblocked him here, with the consent of a number of Wikiversity custodians (including me).
 * Barry then continued to post names on his talk page, and we received complaints from members of the Wikipedian community (see here). I (SB_Johnny) offered to remove the block if he agreed to stop using these names and posting private correspondence, but he refused.
 * Jimbo deleted and protected his user page and user talk.
 * The User:Moulton account is now locally blocked on four projects and is also a locked global account on all Wikimedia sites.  Sockpuppet accounts created by the same user Steward_requests/Checkuser/2008 have also been locally blocked  and/or globally locked.
 * Barry has since then continued to edit using IPs. As a result, wide rangeblocks were instated blocking most of Verizon eastern Massachusetts and the Media Lab subnet of MIT (these blocks do not appear to be effective).
 * Currently, his posting is generally tolerated, except when he adds long and fairly incoherent posts that seem to be disrupting active discussions.

Discussion
I think we need to revisit this and get a clear quorum from within the Wikiversity community, and decide how we're going to approach this from here on out. The indefblock, page deletions, and global block were not the result of a community discussion, so it's not entirely clear where our consensus lies, or even if there is a consensus. I don't think there's any "good" options here, but I'm making a list below of the ones that have been discussed. --SB_Johnny talk 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no basis in policy for making decisions about the "status of Moulton" until the Wikiversity community first has discussions that lead to consensus on policies that define personal information and the rules for blocks and bans. --JWSchmidt 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * John is right. There are officials here who are just making up rules as they go along, unilaterally defining them as hanging offenses, and summarily executing the equivalent of a cyberspace death penalty, when those same officials (and others like them) have long employed the same practices with utter impunity.  What's needed here is a clearly worded community social contract that everyone understands, agrees with, and whole-heartedly subscribes to.  Anything less is a recipe for lunatic social drama.  —Montana Mouse 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, JWSchmidt. While having a policy set out is a good thing, it is not required in order to make a decision regarding Moulton now.  I think we should prefer a set of policies set out beforehand, but trying to lawyer around blocks because all the policies weren't in place first is absurd.  Moulton was (1) fully aware that he was treading on thin ice due to his experiences on other Wikimedia projects and (2) warned multiple times on this site to stop the behavior.  He has no excuse, and that's why he likes to argue based around process, rather than address his bad behavior.


 * Policy is decided by the consensus of the community, per the decision of the private owner of this site. What we as a group decide carries the weight of policy, whether it's on a page marked "policy" or not.


 * I don't believe in doing due process solely for the sake of due process on a private website. Moulton likes to play lawyer games when told to knock off bad behavior and ultimately blocked, but the WV community is not obligated to indulge him in that pursuit.  He can make all the histrionic bad analogies he wants, but this is not a court of law, nor is there any reason it has to be like one. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This community has had two and a half years to decide on critical policies. At first, consensus was to develop policies when they were needed. Months ago a few outsiders came to Wikiversity and started trying to get Moulton banned...that started all of the trouble. Two wielders of the mighty ban hammer decided that they could "solve the problem" by imposing bans without bothering to develop and follow policy. Months ago I called for the development of needed Wikiversity policy and nothing was done. I've asked the two wielders of the mighty ban hammer to help develop needed policies and they have both ignored me. Today, after years of failure to develop needed policies, my factual statement There is no basis in policy for making decisions... is called, "trying to lawyer around blocks". Sχeptomaniac, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Please name the blocks that you are referring to. "due process solely for the sake of due process" <-- I find this a truly offensive characterization of my call for policy development. I stand ready to defend the principle of due process within Wikiversity because it protects us all from tyrants and mobs. "Moulton likes to play lawyer games" <-- Please list these "lawyer games". "this is not a court of law" <-- this is a wiki community where custodians are expected to follow policy. Moulton has been subjected to blocks and bans at Wikiversity that have been imposed with no basis in policy and no attempt to establish consensus, in fact, discussion of the basis for his punishment has been ruled out of order. I will continue to call for needed policy development and I expect custodians to respect and follow Wikiversity policy. In my view, calls for blocks and bans with no basis in policy are unjustified calls for bans and blocks and serious violations of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If your house is on fire because of bad wiring, you put the fire out. You don't wait for the electrician to fix the wires first. --SB_Johnny talk 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting analogy. Wikiversity is a strange house...the people who are responsible for the bad wiring have invited arsonists into the house and seem prepared to endlessly wait for the arrival of a magical volunteer electrician rather than just fix their own problems. It makes me wonder if some people just enjoy putting out fires. --JWSchmidt 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I'm seeing, JWSchmidt, you are saying that we can't decide anything about Moulton until we set policy first. I don't see any reason why this has to be the case.  I am a believer in process, and understand why we should have it, but I don't believe in blocking the community's ability to make a decision because a policy wasn't developed first.  You've not given a good reason why we should not make this decision as a community, but have only argued that we don't have a process in policy as if that prevents us from making community decisions, when it clearly does not.  This is arguing based around process for its own sake, rather than for the good of the community.
 * To use a different analogy, if a person shows up at a private university and misbehaves, they will most likely be told to stop and/or escorted off the property, whether or not there is a policy against that particular behavior on the books. They may be barred from the property and arrested for trespassing if they come back.  This is not unusual.
 * The community has agreed that the process of the actions regarding Moulton were not good in the past, but has supported the results. The Community Review page is part of the attempt to make sure we have a way to address problems without outside intervention.
 * So, the question becomes: do you think there is something wrong with the process we are using, or do you just feel it needs to be written down and slapped with a policy template before we actually make any decisions? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "you are saying that we can't decide anything about Moulton until we set policy first" <-- I never said that. I do think that it is a violation of existing policy to call for a ban to be placed on an editor unless there is a basis in policy for imposing the ban.
 * "You've not given a good reason why we should not make this decision as a community" <-- That's your opinion. People who have disdain for the concept that custodians should follow policy just do not admit that it is a good idea to follow policy. Nobody in this discussion has provided a good reason for imposing a ban an Moulton. In case you are wondering, a good reason would explain how Moulton violated Wikiversity policy and would show where it says in policy that an editor can be banned for that policy violation.
 * "This is arguing based around process for its own sake" <-- That's not true and pushing that false claim is an offensive way to try to game the system and try to engineer a way to take a serious action without following policy.
 * "the good of the community" <-- please explain why it is good for the community to not follow policy.
 * "To use a different analogy..." <-- You used the term "misbehaves" and you have made several questionable assumptions. Importantly, you have assumed that at Wikiversity a scholar is not allowed to know and use the name of a peer who accused the scholar of misbehaving. For thousands of years and all around the world scholars have known and used the names of their peers, particularly when responding to charges of misconduct. If you want to abandon conventional scholarly practices and ban them from Wikiversity then you have the obligation to put your proposed rules down in writing on policy pages and let the members of the Wikiversity community discuss them and decide if they agree with your proposal. By your definition Moulton has "misbehaved", but your definition comes from another wiki where some of the standards and conventions of scholarship are not respected. If you want this community to adopt your definition of "misbehaved" then the correct route is policy development...put it into to policy. If you want to impose a ban without following policy don't try to do so by pushing through non-scholarly practices in a kangaroo court held on an obscure and deceptively worded discussion page that has no links to it from the pages conventionally used to announce important discussions at Wikiversity.
 * "has supported the results" <-- It would be interesting to accurately measure the depth of that support. People who have objected are cowering under the cloud of threats to the very existence of Wikiversity and the authoritative mandate that we cannot even discuss "the process of the actions regarding Moulton". The process of policy development at Wikiversity has been marginalized and in this atmosphere where blocks and bans are handed out with no basis in policy most people are afraid to speak their minds and risk contradicting and upsetting the wielders of the might ban hammer.
 * "address problems without outside intervention" <-- You seem to be suggesting that in order to prevent outsiders from not following Wikiversity policy we have to abandon Wikiversity policy. I don't accept that reasoning.
 * "do you think there is something wrong with the process we are using" <-- yes, many things, some mentioned above. Another objection is that accusations continue to be made against Moulton but he is not allowed to participate here and respond to these accusations.
 * "slapped with a policy template" <-- I find that an offensive way to refer to the important process by which policy is developed. --JWSchmidt 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. As I stated in several spots, much of my assessment of your argument is just the way it looks to me.  I apologize for getting some of your points wrong.  I sometimes have a particularly difficult time figuring out what your point is, so I'm intentionally repeating what I think you're saying so that you can correct what I'm getting wrong.
 * First off, we sometimes seem to be talking about two different things. I've been referring to the community at several points where you have responded by talking about Custodians.  From what I understand, this page is for the entire community to make decisions, not solely Custodians.  I don't believe it is possible for the community to act outside of policy, as the community is the one that decides policy.  On the other hand, my understanding is that if Custodians act outside normal policy, this would be the page to decide if they acted properly or not, and what the consequences might be.
 * I disagree that we need specific policies for bannable behavior before placing one. The argument that truly matters is whether the person is a net benefit to, or net detraction from, Wikiversity's purpose.  This is what I mean by "misbehavior."  I do believe that editors should have fair warning when their disruption is not specifically listed in policy, but I also think Moulton had more than enough warning (particularly regarding the use of real names).  I gave a more extensive list of the problem behaviors in the initial block discussion.
 * Moulton's claim (which you are repeating) of using scholars' names when replying to them is a fabricated excuse, and obviously so. It is not applied in the evenhanded manner that would signal truly ethical behavior.  Instead, he only uses it against those he feels wronged him in the past, and particularly in antagonistic ways. It's very clearly petty vengeance, and he's making up a crappy excuse after the fact, which you've bought into.  I've brought this up with him, and he was ultimately unable to make any substantive answer to the holes in this supposed reasoning.
 * I don't think it's necessarily a good thing when the community acts without a policy in place, but I also believe it's sometimes necessary in order to avoid worse things. Policy will never be able to address every issue, so the community must have some level of discretion.  Hopefully policy will be able to catch up before too long, meaning fewer and smaller departures from specific policies, though.
 * I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing this oppressive atmosphere you speak of. Some recent blocks have not been handled correctly, IMO, but there is ample room to speak out regarding issues.  Of course, there is a right and wrong way to do so, and I believe you have frequently chosen poorly in your methods.  My own experiences attempting to assist Moulton on WP were not without problems, but it was certainly possible to make changes without significant repercussions simply by avoiding doing things that could be perceived as uncivil by uninvolved editors/admins.  By being as clear and polite as possible in my interactions, their ill-conceived attempt to paint myself in a bad light at an RfC was ineffective.
 * Unfortunately, while I would support giving Moulton the ability to reply to accusations, he has consistently abused the ability when it was given to him in the past at WV. Instead of responding to accusations, he questions the right of the person to make the accusation, questioned their judgment without actually saying what was wrong with it, or dodged it in other ways, thus attempting to lawyer his way out of it, rather than face the problem.  He has worn out my rather large reserve of patience by playing games, in order to try and continue his vendetta, rather than address issues honestly. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 01:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't believe it is possible for the community to act outside of policy" <-- I agree, but I do not understand the relevance of this to what is happening on this page. First of all, this is an obscure page that has been visited by very few members of the community. The name of this page does not reveal the important fact that this page is being used to call for a ban on a member of this community without any respect for Wikiversity policy. These calls for a ban are a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. The bureaucrat who set up this page has a conflict of interest because he previously imposed a ban on Moulton, a ban that had no basis in policy and that was a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. The bureaucrat who set up this page is preventing Moulton from participating here and preventing Moulton from responding to the charges that continue to be manufactured and made against him. After one day, with no link to this page from the pages that are normally used to announce important community discussions, the bureaucrat who set up this page posted conclusions about consensus, further poisoning the discussion. You seem to be suggesting that any decision reached in this kangaroo court cannot violate policy and is the voice of the community. I dispute those claims. A few people getting together to use a community review discussion in order to go outside of policy to impose a ban on an editor is a violation of existing policy. "I disagree that we need specific policies for bannable behavior before placing one" <-- You are free to hold such a belief, but you have already made a serious violation of Wikiversity policy by calling for a ban against Moulton that has no basis in policy. You can hardly be counted as an objective judge of how to impose a ban. Further, for the reasons I described above, this "Community Review" is a poor method for imposing a ban, a much worse approach than would be developing the policies that are needed to guide this community towards a sound decision for what to do with Moulton. "The argument that truly matters is whether the person is a net benefit to, or net detraction from, Wikiversity's purpose" <-- Why don't you try putting that into the proposed policy for bans? We had a participant at Wikiversity who came here for the sole purpose of getting Moulton banned and the person running this Kangaroo court made that policy violator a custodian. I question the validity of a "community review" run by an obviously biased bureaucrat as a forum for deciding if Moulton should be banned. Moulton was here as a constructive participant in this community, helping to develop scholarly learning resources, when he was attacked and bombarded with false charges and he has been subjected to a series of unjustified calls for bans on his editing, including from you. I question the value to Wikiversity of your attempt to manufacture excuses for going outside of the policy development process to impose a ban on Moulton. Why not put your energy into helping develop the policies that are needed to deal with this situation? "using scholars' names when replying to them is a fabricated excuse" <-- that is your personal view. Why not try to write it into the proposed privacy policy? If the community agrees with your view, then there would be a basis in policy for preventing Moulton from using the names of people who have made charges against him. "He has worn out my rather large reserve of patience by playing games, in order to try and continue his vendetta, rather than address issues honestly" <-- I wonder if you would be willing to face Moulton in a forum where he can respond to your charges? I find it odd to read a mini-lecture from you about civility when you have seriously violated the Wikiversity civility policy by calling for an unjustified ban on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 20:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a court, it's a discussion of options to be taken by a community that's rapidly shrinking and seriously needs to move on. It is completely inappropriate for you to accuse the people participating in this discussion of acting in bad faith.
 * You've already made it clear that you don't like the process. Point taken, so please respect people's right share their views, and to have their views taken seriously. --SB_Johnny talk 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is completely inappropriate for you to accuse the people participating in this discussion of acting in bad faith" <-- If I accused anyone participating in this discussion of acting in bad faith then I retract the accusation. However, I don't think I made any such accusation. "you don't like the process" <-- It is more that I'm dismayed that you would suggest that it is not important to develop a policy for bans and then decide to set up this discussion forum which is serving as an opportunity for a ban to be imposed. When I realized that Moulton was upsetting people by mentioning personal information I expanded the proposed privacy policy so as to express the conventional Wikimedia approach. I'm trying to channel some energy into the development of needed policies at Wikiversity. "respect people's right share their views, and to have their views taken seriously" <-- I'm happy to do so. I'm from a culture where taking someone seriously and respecting their views involves questioning the validity of their claims. --JWSchmidt 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * {undent}So it isn't as much that the Community Review process isn't supported in policy as it is that you believe not enough of the community is taking part, mostly because you don't think it's been publicized enough? Have I missed it, or have you made any attempts to notify others, or request that others do so, up to this point?  On the other hand, how do you define what the quorum is for this community, since you apparently feel we do not have one?
 * You say this discussion regarding Moulton's ban violates policy. There doesn't seem to be anything in current policy that would prevent a community decision regarding a particular editor's behavior, much less anything against just recommending a ban, despite your claims that doing so constitutes a "serious violation of Wikiversity policy."  Which policy are you referring to, specifically?
 * I have not left my comments unjustified, either. I have repeatedly given multiple justifications as to why his behavior is completely inappropriate to Wikiversity (this is the most concise list, as previously given above).  You claim his work was constructive and scholarly, but I have seen no evidence of that.  His work here was a self-absorbed hyperbole-laden account of his issue with certain WP editors, and never attempted to truly tackle ethics.  He makes a decent attempt at sounding scholarly through his use of a small selection of readings, liberally salting his writing with a few words and phrases, but any extended contact with him makes it clear that he doesn't have any breadth to his knowledge on ethics.  He uses the same words and phrases over and over, and occasionally shows that he does not fully understand some of them (as in the case of his continued confusion of a social contract, which by definition implies agreement, with an explicit legal contract).
 * I don't believe any of my accusations regarding Moulton have not previously been posted where he could respond. He has just failed to make any substantive reply.  If he really wants to contact me, he has channels available, through which he has previously done so.  I'll strike and/or correct anything if he is able to provide a decent argument.  Unfortunately, his love for spamming his essays, while also avoiding answering specifics, means that he has left few remaining options to WV Custodians in order to minimize his disruption.  Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * have you made any attempts to notify others <-- I have made no such effort nor do I recognize an obligation to call attention to a show trial. I object to the practice of deciding that Wikiversity policy need not be developed and, instead, deciding to convene a deceptively-titled and poorly-advertised kangaroo court where people are allowed to violate policy by calling for an unjustified ban and where it is possible for participants to make false charges against an editor without the accused editor being allowed to exercise self-defense. "how do you define what the quorum is for this community" <-- in matters as important as imposing bans, I think the community should develop a policy that explains what a ban is and how one can be imposed on an editor. Imposing a ban is never an emergency action. It is not in the best interest of the Wikiversity project for anyone to go around the policy development process in order to impose a ban. "There doesn't seem to be anything in current policy against just recommending a ban". I linked to the policy, above, and explained it. Calling for unjustified bans is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Wikiversity policy only describes one reason for imposing a ban. Calling for a ban to be imposed on someone who has not violated Wikiversity policy is unjustified. "You claim his work was constructive and scholarly, but I have seen no evidence of that" <-- As someone who collaborated with Moulton on several projects I know that Moulton was making useful contributions to Wikiversity before an effort was launched to have him banned from Wikiversity. Are you suggesting that because you have not seen something it does not exist? "His work here ... never attempted to truly tackle ethics" <-- this is an interesting claim which I feel does not fit with reality. I wonder if you would care to sign your real name to that claim and defend it in a court of law? "avoiding answering specifics" <-- Please provide a list of these "specifics". --JWSchmidt 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we have very different concepts of what "policy" is. I get the feeling you think of policy as analogous to criminal law, in that it must be codified before anything can be done by the community.  I don't see things that way.  I consider policy only an expansion of the basic principles to help with consistency, inform those who may not be able to fully expand upon those principles, and delineate more specific boundaries for those who may need them.  We may not have had specific rules and processes set up, but I believe Moulton was definitely violating the principles of WV and refused to moderate his behavior when warned, thus necessitating an indefinite block.  By far, the majority here appears to agree.
 * The fact that you are the only one saying that the ban discussion is unjustified (and therefore against policy) suggests that you are maybe not assessing the situation very well. I have provided justifications.  You perhaps feel that some protocol was not observed, but it does not cancel out that I have justified my support for a ban.  I have provided multiple reasons, and the only disagreement with any of those has been you, and mostly procedural objections at that.
 * I don't know what my real name or a court of law has to do with squat, though. Are you suggesting there's some kind of legal issue, or that it would somehow change my conclusions?  Any way I might answer that question, it doesn't change anything, so why should I answer at all?
 * I'll provide a a couple of examples of Moulton's avoidance behavior: He has not explained why his supposed scholarly ethics that require referring to other scholars by their real names only applies to those he has been in conflict with, and particularly in ways that mysteriously appear designed to piss those people off.  In several correspondences with me over putting up his "case study" for deletion, he has never actually answered any of the reasons I've given why it was not a case study nor scholarly.  Instead, he just argued that I supposedly was not following the "correct" procedure. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I get the feeling you think of policy as analogous to criminal law, in that it must be codified before anything can be done by the community" <-- I never said that. My position is that it is better for the community to deal with problems through policy development rather than by means of show trials and kangaroo courts. "Moulton was definitely violating the principles of WV" <-- Please list those "principles of WV" and explain how Moulton violated them. "I have justified my support for a ban" <-- Please explain how it is "justified" to call for a ban against an editor at Wikiversity who has not violated any Wikiversity policy while at the same time you are violating Wikiversity policy by calling for the ban. If you want to define something as a bannable offense, then why not do so through the policy development process? "I don't know what my real name or a court of law has to do with squat" <-- I object when policy violators are free to make false charges against a Wikiversity participant while preventing the attacked Wikiversity participant from providing a defense against the attacks. In my experience, anonymous wiki editors are very bold about making false charges against fellow editors who cannot defend themselves. I'm curious to know if you would be willing to defend your statement: "His work here ... never attempted to truly tackle ethics" outside of a kangaroo court, for example, in a real court where you would have to defend your claim with with evidence and against cross examination. "why should I answer at all?" <-- I study how people use wiki technology to facilitate online learning. I'm interested in the process by which scholars are alienated from Wikimedia wiki projects by anonymous editors who do not have to defend their claims. I think it would be educational to have a learning project in which you and Moulton discussed ethics. "only applies to those he has been in conflict with" <-- I'm not sure what you mean by "in conflict with". My understanding is that Moulton, like many people, objects when falsehoods are published about him. Some people like living in a country where they have due process and the right to confront and challenge people who make false charges against them. "mysteriously appear designed to piss those people off" <-- Moulton comes from a culture where it is civil behavior to use the name of people who have accused you of misbehavior. I suppose that seems "mysterious" to people from a culture where common practice is for anonymous editors to publish falsehoods while hiding behind pseudonyms. he just argued that I supposedly was not following the "correct" procedure <-- I don't know what that difference in opinion was about. In general, when there are differences in opinion at Wikiversity then it seems like a time to work on policy development so that the community can decide what rules will be followed at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough, John. Wikimedia projects have always held that pseudonymous editors have just as much right to participate as editors who choose not to be pseudonymous. There are also more people participating in this discussion than in any recent policy discussion, so there's no sense in continuing to dismiss it. This is a consensus based community, not a constitutional monarchy (and even if it were, what makes you think you have the monopoly on declaring how decisions can be made?), and the community has been disrupted seriously enough and for a long enough period that a decision on this needs to be made before we can move on to more constructive efforts (like working on policies, outreach, and maybe even content!). It's been made clear repeatedly that people would be supportive of Moulton if he simply refrained from using r/l names and publishing the contents of correspondences which were assumed to be private. I think it says a lot for this community that many of us still want to welcome him if he does that. But it's up to the community to decide, and it's not for you to dictate how the community decides.
 * Even Wikipedia, which seemingly has more policies and guidelines than the average kindergarden class has toes, sometimes needs to decide things using ArbCom. We're fortunate enough not to need an arbcom, because the community is small enough that everyone can weigh in. A large proportion of those still around have, in fact, weighed in already, and there's still a week to go for the rest to share their thoughts. And even after that, it can be revisited if the situation changes. --SB_Johnny talk 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Enough, John <-- Is this the true meaning of "consensus" at Wikiversity, the discussion ending mandate of "enough"? "what makes you think you have the monopoly on declaring how decisions can be made?" <-- I don't think that. What I've done is discuss why your method (a poorly advertised and deceptively named discussion run by someone who previously banned Moulton and who has prevented Moulton from participating here and who has dissuaded the the community from pursuing development of a policy for bans while providing this forum as an opportunity for people to go around existing policy and call for bans on Moulton) is inferior to the process of policy development. "It's been made clear repeatedly that people would be supportive of Moulton if he simply refrained from using r/l names and publishing the contents of correspondences which were assumed to be private" <-- I do not think the matter can really be "made clear" until it is put in Wikiversity policy. Doing so is not a difficult matter. It could have been put into policy months ago. The main problem is that as long as members of the Ruling Party can just bash people on the head with the mighty ban hammer there is no need to discuss issues or develop policy....yes, we have seen the true meaning of "consensus" during the past six months, including secret off-wiki decisions and authoritarian mandates that have replaced community discussions. There can be no consensus on an issue unless there is thought and discussion about what is best for the project. Moulton raised this issue: is it always a good idea to allow wiki participants to hide behind false names, particularly when they are publishing false claims about living people? Does it make sense to decide issues like that in a forum like this where there is no discussion of the issue and what is best for Wikiversity, but rather, just a rush adopt, without debate, the approach used at other wikis? If we are so sure that is the correct approach, why not put it into policy? --JWSchmidt 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy development is going on as we speak, though perhaps not as quickly and not in the direction you wanted. However, why is it OK for you to make a policy without consensus, but not for the community to decide consensus without policy.  Is written policy therefore more important than community consensus?  I'm afraid I'm not seeing a logical consistency in much of what you've been posting here.
 * Moulton's supposed culture that encourages real names in disputes was oddly late in coming, then. It didn't appear until after he spent some time at Wikipedia Review and, in particular, ran across the tactics of Daniel Brandt, who gathers information on editors' real identities in order to try to use it as leverage for his goals regarding WP and his biography on that site.  Moulton's use of such an obviously fabricated excuse only further convinces me that he should remain site-banned indefinitely.
 * You can knock off the real-names rants, too. I have my reasons for using my pseudonym, but it has no bearing on my stated arguments.  Refute them, if you find them lacking.  However, I still believe Moulton's "scholarly" contribution here amounted to some minor edits of debatable "scholarly" content to the WP ethics project, only to quickly turn to his fixation with the "IDCAB" and his conflict with them.  Your claim that my support of the ban is "unjustified" continues to ignore the multiple justifications I've given.
 * At this point, I'm done arguing with you. I don't see anything wrong with trying to help Moulton; I did it myself, for long enough.  However, you are uncritically buying into some highly questionable claims of his, which I can not support. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "why is it OK for you to make a policy without consensus" <-- When Wikiversity was established as a "beta project" we were asked to "go where no Wikimedia project had gone before" and make some guidelines for research during the 6 month beta period. There were not many people who were interest in doing the work required to draft those guidelines, but we had community discussions, including an IRC meeting, as part of the process for development of the guidelines. I'm not going to apologize for helping to develop needed policies at Wikiversity. Policy pages are always open for continued discussion and editing -or even removal of a policy template- and I'm not going to ever apologize for putting a policy template on a needed policy. "Is written policy therefore more important than community consensus" <-- That is a false choice. The best way to decide on important issues is to engage in policy development, not set up a show trial like this page. If this page is going to be where the Wikiversity community decides on how to impose bans then it should not have the deceptive title "Status of Moulton". "Moulton's use of such an obviously fabricated excuse" <-- Moulton thinks it is unethical for wikis to allow anonymous editors to publish falsehoods about living people. You can call this a "fabricated excuse" but I take seriously its implications for things like biographies of living people at Wikipedia and kangaroo courts where people are not allowed to defend themselves against wild charges. "real-names rants" <-- I'd be interested to hear just what you mean by "rant". I'm just discussing the fact that people are more likely to be honest when they can be held personally responsible for what they say. "highly questionable claims of his" <-- I'd be interested to see a list of these highly questionable claims. --JWSchmidt 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No more. I've explained my points, but I'm not going argue in circles with you, especially considering how painful your logic can be.  You've done a very good job of making yourself irrelevant to Wikiversity, so I don't see any particular reason to continue. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it against policy to block or ban Moulton? KillerChihuahua 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Unblock and restore all pages
(Note: we may not be technically able to unblock the User:Moulton account due to the global block. It is unlikely that the account would be able to edit if locally unblocked here.  To do that would probably require a steward request for global (un)lock and (un)hiding.)


 * 1)  KillerChihuahua 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  --mikeu talk 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  --  DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  User constantly outted me and used my personal name, attacked me, etc, while I kept trying to tell him that such behavior is inappropriate and needs to end before he can come back. He will not acknowledge that, which leads me to believe that he will not perform the necessary changes to handle being a member of this community again. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima: Can you explain what you mean by "outted me"? Do you support making the proposed privacy policy an official Wikiversity policy? --JWSchmidt 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My full name, my age, and my work was posted at Wikipedia Review by Moulton then spread about in a mass email to many people including users banned by ArbCom at Wikipedia-en. I should probably recuse myself in this section like I did below, but I feel that that it doesn't matter so much here because we don't have the authority to override the globalblock right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima: Do you think Wikiversity should have a policy that restricts what Wikiversity editors can do at other websites outside of Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how he used my name and information -on- Wikiversity before, there is no real reason to go into the nuanced differentiation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to know if you support making the proposed privacy policy an official Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 05:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first line states what is already true: Wikimedia privacy policy expectations are the same regardless. Regardless, it is basic incivility to address people in a manner that they have expressed as inappropriate. A policy or no is not at issue here, as it is a level of respect and treatment towards others that was asked to be discontinued and yet the offender still refuses to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikimedia privacy policy expectations" <-- Is this the policy you are talking about? If so, how does it relate to Moulton? If wiki participants have a dispute about acceptable ways to address each other then is that something that can be settled by consensus through policy development? --JWSchmidt 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  I should oppose this, as there is no solution of the problem which rose up.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Resistance is futile.  —Moulton 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  This is a bad idea. MBisanz 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  He's yet to even acknowledge the relatively minor changes he would have to make in order to be allowed back. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) .  He does not respect consensus or the community.  This would be entirely unhelpful.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Maintain the current approach
(Allow editing from IPs when they are not seen to be disruptive)
 * 1)  This is not the solution.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)   --  DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 09:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  There are too many disruptive edits to choose this option.  --mikeu talk 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) .  Per mikeu.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Outright denial of editing privledges
(Revert all posts, block all IPs that he uses)


 * 1) Leaning to option 4, since the editor isn't following the foundation principles regardless of the situation he still violates the policy.  DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 12:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think we have enough custodians for this, since I suspect a large time investment would be needed. We could probably recruit from the wp administrator pool though, since this is in many ways a wikipedian problem, rather than a wikiversity problem. --SB_Johnny  talk 13:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) My experience with Moulton is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him. He will be a source of problems until he is forcibly evicted, as he has been from most Wikipedia projects, as well as various and sundry newsgroups and forums around the Net. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See talk page for discussion of r/n vs uname
 * 1) Commment - I am conflicted from pushing for a ban, but my opinion can be seen above. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) question - Wikiversity policy only allows bans "based on use of certain words. Moulton's use of which words provide the basis for banning him? --JWSchmidt 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * John, you just wrote the Ban policy a few days ago. People are weighing in on whether to "Revert all posts, block all IPs that he uses". --SB_Johnny talk 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this section is not for discussing a ban, then change the heading for this section. --JWSchmidt 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about a ban, or the equivalent. Feel free to change the section name if it offends you. The wikilawyering game is pretty much played out by now, and the community's decision is more important than the baggage. Just voice your preference like everyone else, please. --SB_Johnny talk 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Feel free to change the section name" <-- You are running this page, I'm just asking questions. Wikiversity has one policy that describes when a ban can be imposed. Under the conditions of this page section, calling for a ban seems like a violation of the Wikiversity civility policy which forbids calling for unjustified bans. --JWSchmidt 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not running the page, I just started it. If I didn't want my writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, I wouldn't have submitted it :-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  This is not a good solution, because it is not specified for how long we will be blocking those IP ranges. It also blocked severel good contributers to Wikiversity and more over it not the review, its the punishment.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Yes, this needs to be done. MBisanz 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  reluctantly.  Not a great solution, but the best option at this point. Could this perhaps be implemented more realistically by enabling Flagged Revisions and enacting it on project pages he likes to show up on?  Is this an option we want to consider? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  - doesn't seem possible to me, and trying to obliterate all traces of the guy seems somewhat extreme and not within the spirit of WV regardless of what you think of him. Countrymike 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  I support #3 and/or #5 until we can figure out what is involved with doing #4.  --mikeu talk 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) .  I feel that the collateral damage would be way too high.  I would support timed blocks (say, a month, several months, but no more than a year) of the IP's he's using, but I oppose indef blanket blocks.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * option #5 is the one that includes range blocks. This option is to only block single ip address.  Each time there are edits, we would give the ip a short block, but mostly just use rollback/revert to remove the edits.  This is the more time consuming option, and we would likely need more custodians to implement this.  There is also the possibility of requesting help from SWMT to help with the edit reverting, if the community decides that this is the best option.  --mikeu talk 13:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

4. File an abuse complaint
(Make a formal complaint to Verizon, M.I.T., and any other ISP he uses to access Wikiversity)


 * 1) - I would support a temporary implementation of 3 and/or 5 while we pursue this option as the long term strategy.  --mikeu talk 14:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * - I will work on documenting my reasons for supporting this option and opposing other options during the next few days. There are many months of logs and revision history that I will need to go through to find diffs.  --mikeu talk 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still support this option but need to learn more about what the procedures are for filing a complaint.--mikeu talk 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Preferably as a method to assist in implementing 3, above. He ignores Keep Out signs; his ethics are dodgy at best. Inform his provider. KillerChihuahua 14:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) - Due to legal issues, his security/internet provider should be immediately informed about him since he also have violated the law itself.     DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) questions: "abuse complaint" <-- abuse of what? "he also have violated the law itself" <-- what law? --JWSchmidt 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By revealing personal information - he has violated the "Data Protection Act" this is the law which I was referring to. DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean: Data Protection Act? --JWSchmidt 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the law still applies. DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how that law applies to Moulton and Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It should be done as early as possible. If it fall I would recomend to block all ranges.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) - seems quite extreme to me and passes the buck. Countrymike 09:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Seems a little far-fetched and extreme, as his behavior is often more petty/small-minded than anything else.  If someone still wants to file a complaint personally (since his behavior tends to span several websites), it would obviously be up to them, though. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that we should have a fear to do this?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support.  If it gets legal, Moulton might actually start paying attention?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, but paying attention in this case is not contrudict this.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Wider range blocks
So far range blocks have been only done temperately which is probably why they seem ineffective. I propose we consider range blocking Verizon and MIT, file abuse complaints with Verizon and MIT, and keep the range blocks until Verizon and MIT do something about it. While probably not the greatest option in terms of who else might be effected by it, I think its more likely to work than doing 2, 3, or 4. I've heard this has worked effectively on other wikis and could help reduce how long a range block might have to last. My proposal is in effect a combination of proposal 3 and 4. --darklama 12:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's a good idea, since it's really just a "lazy man's version" of option 4. I.e., you're putting the onus of making the complaint on the Verizon user or MIT student. Besides, it's like nuking the city to kill the cockroaches: you'll level the buildings, but the cockroaches will probably survive anyway (I don't in any way mean to imply that you have cockroach-like characteristics, Barry :-)). --SB_Johnny talk 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm suggesting that we also file a complaint. So Verizon and MIT would get complains from both us and their customers/students. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That might have an effect, especially if when the complaint is sent to the providers it is made clear that we've already taken these measures. However, it might also give the providers less interest in doing anything - they may view it as information about something which has been handled. If this is considered, I suggest a complaint be sent, and if the providers are not responsive, then rangeblocks be given. KillerChihuahua 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Collateral damage. Why should others be blocked because Barry cannot be civil and work with others? KillerChihuahua 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Collateral damage will happen from blocking IP addresses one at a time as well, but by complaining to the providers as well, the collateral damage could be more short term. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  per discussion, with the understanding this is secondary to option 4. KillerChihuahua 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment I blocked the IPv6 node because I felt that it was worth it. You can extrapolate about how far I am willing to go on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  I support this like a modification of no. 4. But I think this can be done by custodiands faster, if the community agrees that Moulton and his sockpuppets should be blocked. The way how custodians will do that will just stay on them.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  --  DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 09:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Countrymike 09:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  I support #3 and/or #5 until we can figure out what is involved with doing #4.  --mikeu talk 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) for reasons given above.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) That is over-reaction. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Conditional unblock
(If Barry agrees to stop using real names against the wishes of the people he names, etc. Again, it may not be technically possible to unblock the Moulton username)
 * 1) -- best option by far IMO. --SB_Johnny  talk 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  --mikeu talk 13:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been a number of people who have approached moulton about changes in the way he participates at wv. The most recent is at Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of user:Moulton in the context of a project of mine.  A conditional unblock should not even be considered, when more modest attempts have failed.  --mikeu talk 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  - I have seen zero rationale for why we should consider this. Further, he has made no such promise, rendering this particular argument moot. KillerChihuahua 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As he has continued this practice on this very page, this seems doubly moot. KillerChihuahua 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  -  DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 14:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment Barry continues to use my real identity and explicit information, has sent it to many people that I have never had contact with, and has even posted it on various websites including Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Comment I think this might work if the Wikiversity community first has discussions that lead to consensus on policies that define personal information and the rules for blocks and bans. --JWSchmidt 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  I disagree with this approach. Moulton showed us several times, he is not able to stop to use real people names. More over, there are other points why the project/community should be protected from his edits.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  in principle.  However, my expectations of him actually agreeing to this are low. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  - framed in terms of the forever requested "social contract" this is worth a shot. Countrymike 09:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * , as per other/s.
 * 1) until such time as Moulton is willing to respect consensus.  When Moulton has demonstrated a willingness to do this for a prolongued period of time (several months), I would support this option.

7. Establish a Mutually Agreeable Community Social Contract
Agreements work best when they are reciprocal and symmetrical. Long ago, I proposed a Social Contract to KillerChihuahua. But, for reasons unbeknownst to me, she ignored or rejected that modern community governance concept. Then, here on Wikiversity, I renewed the presentation of the concept of a Community Social Contract. Once again, for reasons unbeknownst to me, KillerChihuahua led the charge to kibosh the idea, in favor of an anachronistic governance practice that was already going out of style some 3769 years ago. Let's include among the options a 21st Century governance concept: a mutually agreeable Wikiversity Social Contract. —Moulton 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)  Ethical Best Practices are a good idea.  —Moulton 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've shown no willingness to abide by consensus. Such contracts would appear to be meaningless to you.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jade Knight: "You've shown no willingness to abide by consensus" <-- can you explain how he could do so to your satisfaction? --JWSchmidt 17:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  this works here, but operation time is slow. But I dont see, what this has with you Moulton.--Juan de Vojníkov 10:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Revalue Jimbo Wales´s act and decrease Mouton´s block to 5 years
This point includes more things so let me create subpoints. I think, that Jimmy Wales act were quite heterogenous to the Wikiversity. So there is a need to contradict, approve or change his act.

8.1. Specify the reson, why Moulton should be blocked
In this case, community should say if the points below can be understood like violationg Wikiversity and its community and agree, that Moulton was blocked because of breaking these points.
 * naming Wikipedia contributors who wanted to remain pseudonymous (on Wikiversity and his blocks)
 * posting private corespondence (on Wikiversity and his blocks)
 * repeated ignoring of custodians notices
 * poisoning community via emotional tests--Juan de Vojníkov 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

8.2. Evaluate the impact of the indefinite blocking and decrease it to 5 years
Think about the indefinite blocking of the user and cutting him from the community. He doesnt se a help hand. If he is blocked indefinite he may not see any positives become better and might continue trolling on the communities bill. So lets reblock Moulton to 5 years (2 years is nothing, 5 years are good enought to change someones life both distance evaluation). In the case he will continue breaking the up specified points, he will be reblocked indefinite (or another community review will be oponed).--Juan de Vojníkov 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

8.3. Handle the reasons which get this situation
Support the custodians act (It means to agree with Moulton blocking based on custodians interpretation of the situation) and/or crate the rules for the situation. Explain on Meta for what Wikiversity is and for what Wikiversity is not.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

8.4. Take care to fullfil Moulton block and community protection
Agree poing no. 4. And if problems will sustain, block all IP ranges abusing the block. And continue negotiating with the organisations.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolutions
I had originally thought that this discussion would remain open for a week, but most of the regular contributors have already stated their preferences, and there is clear consensus on some points. With that in mind, I'm "provisionally closing" some of the discussions, but these provisional resolutions will be stricken if our many missing colleagues turn up and oppose. --SB_Johnny talk 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to help the community make a more informed decision about the above options and determine a resolution I have requested a checkuser of User:Moulton at Steward requests/Checkuser. --mikeu talk 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Provisional resolutions
As of 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC), the following resolutions are provisionally adopted, pending full consensus or failure to reach consensus, as read by --SB_Johnny talk:
 * 1) By unanimous consent, Moulton shall not be unblocked unconditionally, and his user and talk page shall remain deleted.
 * 2) There appears to be no support for maintaining the current approach of letting him edit when not disruptive.
 * 3) There is broad support for denying editing privileges, though there are some questions about the feasibility of this, and the length of the blocks to be imposed. Custodians should use rollback and block any IPs or accounts Moulton uses.
 * 4) There is broad support to use stronger rangeblocks, so the current rangeblocks will be reset to /16.


 * sorry to come late to this process - and further apologies if this is an inappropriate section to be editing - please do move my comments to the 'best fit' spot at will. I still think WAS summed up the situation best a while ago, I think on this project, when he said that it was a great way to drive yourself crazy to allow 'anyone to edit' and to have 'banned users' - just doesn't really work.
 * it's partly in that spirit, and partly because I think everything gotten so overly personalised and confuddled, that no-one knows who's committing the heinous sins really, and there's probably beams in all our eyes, that I feel it's probably the best course of action to try and put down all our threats, weapons (rhetorical and 'block button'y), chill a bit, and try and move on. It's a silly game to be playing 'whack the Moulton', I reckon.
 * We can say with crystal clear clarity 'the use of real names without permission, after a first offence results in a month's block' or somesuch, and leave it at that, I reckon. Or we can keep playing, I guess.... Privatemusings 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. SB_Johnny previously imposed a ban on Moulton's editing, a ban that had no basis in policy. SB_Johnny set up this discussion page after deciding that this was a better approach than allowing the community to develop needed policies for dealing with bans. This forum has become an opportunity for people to make unjustified calls for a ban. Unjustified calls for bans are a serious violation of Wikiversity policy (see Civility). SB_Johnny should close this flawed forum and encourage the community to instead develop the Wikiversity policies that are needed for dealing with bans and personal information. --JWSchmidt 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. I did not impose the original ban, and I do not in any way see this discussion as contradictory to the development of policy. --SB_Johnny talk 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was when you banned Moulton from editing Salmon of Doubt's talk page at a time when Moulton was trying to defend himself against Salmon's crusade to get Moulton banned. "I do not in any way see this discussion as contradictory to the development of policy" <-- You have a history at Wikiversity of marginalizing the policy development process and replacing it with a system of show trials, secret off-wiki plots and imposition of bad blocks and bans that have no basis in policy. Rather than help develop a policy for bans, you spoke against the need to do so and instead started this page which continues to support an end run around policy where participants are allowed to make unjustified calls for a ban, calls that violate existing Wikiversity policy. Stop the kangaroo courts and help the community develop needed policies. --JWSchmidt 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see... I thought we were talking about Jimbo's "ban". There's nothing unjustified in calling to ban a user who has been causing serious problems for months, and has refused to take the small steps asked of him for just as many months. And yes, you started a ban policy, others tried to participate, and you reverted them. Eventually we might be big enough to need a policy on bans, but right now we're small enough to just make decisions as a community without first needing to make decisions about when we make decisions... when the goats are stripping the orchard, you don't start building a fence around the orchard while they continue to eat the trees: you lock them in the barn and fix the barnyard fence first. --SB_Johnny talk 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "a user who has been causing serious problems" <-- It would be interesting to carefully examine the chain of cause and effect in this case....we could start with a certain BLP that was created at Wikipedia in violation of policy and Moulton's attempt to fix that problem BLP and we could explore the actions of Wikipedians who went to war against Moulton to prevent him from fixing problem BLPs at Wikipedia. We could continue to follow the chain of events to Wikiversity where Moulton was editing constructively until he was followed here from Wikipedia and subjected to an orchestrated effort to get him banned from Wikiversity. Here we are, 4 or 5 months later, and we are still unable to perform the simple task of putting down into Wikiversity policy a rule saying what Moulton has done wrong. I suspect we will never have a real discussion of the problems caused at Wikiversity by anonymous editors...it is much easier to just blame everything on Moulton and lower the ban hammer. --JWSchmidt 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolutions not provisionally adopted
As of 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC), there appears to be no consensus or broad support for the following resolutions, as read by --SB_Johnny talk:
 * 1) There is majority support for filing an abuse complaint, but it is technically not possible for the community to do this. Abuse complaints must be made by an indivual through the OTRS system.
 * 2) There is no consensus in the matter of conditional unblock.
 * 3) There is no consensus in the matter of a social contract.
 * 4) There is no consensus to revalue Jimbo Wales´s act and decrease Mouton´s block to 5 years

Final resolutions
The discussions over the past 12 days have mostly ended in split decisions, but there seems to be no support at all for unblocking unconditionally or undeleting his user and talk pages, and also no support for continuing the approach that has become the habit over the past few months, which was to allow him to post as long as it wasn't getting over the top. The community is not in agreement of what else to do: I think question we have to answer at this point is how to avoid collateral damage, since no-one (aside from Moulton himself and possibly JWSchmidt) seems to want him to continue editing here if he's not willing to change his behavior. The question is how to do that.
 * In the matter of an outright denial of editing privileges, there is a slim majority supporting, though some of the opposes seem to be related to the practical possibility of this and/or seem to be discussing the range blocks (#6). Both the supporting and opposing comments expressed a concern about both the possibility of collateral damage and the practical possibility of enforcing this without unacceptable damage.
 * In the matter of filing an abuse complaint (#4), there have been a slim majority supporting, but this may not be something the community can do as a community in any case (see below)
 * In the matter of using wider rangeblocks, there is a strong majority in support, but again there is the concern about collateral damage. The length of the blocks should be discussed further (see below)
 * In the matter of unblocking if Moulton agrees to stop certain behaviors, the decision is split. This is probably a moot point, since there is no sign from Moulton that he would be willing to do so unconditionally.
 * There has been little discussion of the last 2 options.

As a practical matter, it's certainly much easier to maintain the rangeblocks, because we simply do not have a large enough staff to individually revert his edits and block each IP he uses. I did some asking around on Wikipedia, and it turns out that they have had surprisingly little collateral damage using soft rangeblocks on these IPs, so as a short-term solution they're relatively "safe". Personally, I think we should try to keep these short-term if we're going to be using them at all: perhaps make these 1-week blocks, and then re-block the batch if he returns after a week.

I also asked around about the abuse complaint, and honestly I'm still not completely clear on it. The "abuse" in this case would be simply continuing to edit the site after having been banned by the site's community (i.e., it's not a legal issue, but a terms of service issue to be decided upon by Verizon and MIT). The way to make an abuse complaint is through the OTRS system.

Another possibility that came to my attention is that we could have information about the rangeblocks linked from MediaWiki:Blockedtext, so that if someone tries to contribute from Wikiversity but is caught by the rangeblocks, they could at least get an easy link to the explanation (perhaps this page, or maybe a page on meta where they could ask for help). For example, it could have bold text saying "if you are accessing this site from Verizon New England or M.I.T., you may have been blocked due to rangeblocks we have in place due to a certain user, see for details.

So, the discussion is not quite finished here, but at least we're clear on a few things, which is a major improvement. Regardless of what else we're doing, the privacy policies and blocking policies really need to be either finished and enacted or rejected in favor of something else, on the off chance that we should find ourselves faced with a similar situation in the future. --SB_Johnny talk 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Verizon? Yes. This is John Smith. I am a custodian at Wikiversity. We have a problem. One of your customers is editing the Wikiversity web site even though we told him not to. Well, yes, we are an anyone can edit site, but not for people who break our rules. Well, no, the rule he broke wasn't written down as a site rule. No, we don't have any agreement people have to agree to before they begin editing. What did he do? He used someone's real name. Hello? Hello? Anyone there? WAS 4.250 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Current status
Please note that the blocked ranges have been changed often since first implemented. With the advice of checkusers we have been able to narrow the blocks to just target the ip addresses that have been used by moulton and to prevent blocking of other anon users. The blocks are currently for 1 year, but they are being reviewed on a regular basis. Over time the restrictions on editing from these ranges has, and will continue, to be loosened. The information below will be updated as needed. --mikeu talk 14:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the list of current blocks:


 * the block of User:Moulton remains in place with an infinite expiry time.
 * additional accounts created by moulton (confirmed by checkuser) are also indef blocked:
 * User:Azazel Nation
 * User:Barsoom Tork
 * User:Block the World
 * User:Every IP in New England
 * User:Gastrin Bombesin
 * User:IP.68.160.140.234
 * User:IP.68.160.145.21
 * User:IP.68.162.241.114
 * User:IP.141.154.74.210
 * User:IP.141.154.76.226
 * User:Mokita Syzygy
 * User:Never Again
 * User:Original Spin
 * User:Out the story line
 * User:Verizon.68.162.215.65


 * the following ip ranges used by moulton have also been blocked:
 * 18.85.10.0/27 log status
 * 68.160.128.0/18 log status
 * 68.162.192.0/18 log status
 * 68.163.96.0/20 log status

last updated: 14:27, 9 February 2009