Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of user:Moulton in the context of a project of mine

Status of user:Moulton in the context of a project of mine
I don't know if i am at the right place here. I don't want to post this message on the Colloquium, so i thought about posting it here. Last year i agreed with Barry (User:Moulton) to start a topic for a project of mine, WikiProject study before editing, it will be on science and creationism (Intelligent Design). My purpose is to test the format of my project, to get other people interested, and to test whether the concept of organizing a congress might work.

My question, which brings me here, is whether Barry is allowed to edit on this specific project and congress. If there are limitations on his edits, than i ask for a temporary relieve only for this project. This project is only a small part of Wikiversity and has nothing to do with the main conflicts at the moment, so i hope there are some possibilities.--Daanschr 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think his account is globally blocked, but I'd be quite happy if he were willing to just open a new account for this purpose. He'll need to avoid using this account for anything to do with his "primary interests" and/or address or discuss people by their real names without explicit permission. I'm not sure where we'd discuss it with him, however, since his talk page was deleted and protected by what may or may not have been an office action. --SB_Johnny talk 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you think it's important to understand under what authority Jimbo was acting when he usurped the roles of just about everyone here who had invested their good faith in the project? If the scope of Wikiversity (and sister projects) doesn't embrace Applied Ethics (including derivative and related subjects such as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, etc.), then the organizers of this project have a lot of head-scratching to do.  —Barry Kort 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the problem for ya right there Dannschr... he's probably not interested in anything outside his agenda (which is a shame, because he could really be a great contributor otherwise). --SB_Johnny talk 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A year and a half ago, I suggested that these projects adopt a Social Contract so that the kind of jackbooted thuggery that occurred first on WP and then here wouldn't recur. I have no reason to believe the same jackbooted thuggery won't continue unabated unless and until the organizers here establish a functional Social Contract that everyone can have faith in.  —Barry Kort 00:08, 11 January 2009

Barry, are you interested in the suggestion made by SB-Johnny, by opening up an account, only for using it on my project pages? I also got an alternative solution, but this would be more polite.--Daanschr 07:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I need a guarantee, in the form of Social Contract, signed by all participants here, that they will henceforth eschew and abandon the unscholarly, unbecoming, and anachronistic practice of blithely blocking, baleeting, and blacklisting credentialed scholars, and evolve to a 21st Century practice of Scholarly Ethics appropriate to an authentic learning community. —Barry Kort 14:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My influence on the whole of Wikiversity is limited. We can make a social contract especially for the project I started.--Daanschr 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As you know, Cary Bass, Jimbo Wales, Mike Umbricht, Mike.lifeguard, Ottava Rima, Guillom, and Darklama (among others) routinely delete anything I write, without regard for its educational value. Unless each of them agree to abandon the Jimbonic Jackboot Juggernaut and eschew his Puerile Pogrom Parade, there is no reason to expect that our joint work will survive their Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 Censorship Regime. —Barry Kort 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits here haven't been deleted, so that implies that there might be no danger for your edits in my project.--Daanschr 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look again. Your hopeful thesis of two days ago has since been manifestly falsified by a typical example of characteristically disruptive interference by a mindlessly adolescent miscreant who once again demonstrates an utter disregard for the WMF Mission Statement and an incorrigible obliviousness of the concept of scholarly ethics. —Barry Kort  10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Would Barry actually be willing to work on a project rather than pursue his vendetta against the various personalities he perceives to have wronged him? I'm not seeing any evidence of that so far.  He's just engaging in the usual histrionics, and hasn't indicated he would agree to any restrictions on his own behavior.  As usual, it's everyone else that deserves the restrictions, while he himself is just a poor martyr. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Would the custodians here be willing to demonstrate that they have abandoned their unethical, unscholarly, unbecoming, anachronistic, and egregiously fascistic practices by restoring the educational materials that they have summarily deleted, in flagrant violation of the Mission Statement of WMF? I reckon the likelihood of WV custodians rising to that level of academic integrity is vanishingly small.  —Barry Kort 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Barry, this way a guarantee will not be given, I presume. You may enter my project if you stop mentioning your problems with certain editors of Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation. If you don't want to do that, than this will be my last try and i will make an end to the topic 'Science and Creationism (Intelligent Design)'.--Daanschr 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a functional social contract, you don't have a functional learning community capable of hosting and sustaining an authentic academic culture. —Barry Kort 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Barry, I don't think you seriously want to do this topic with me on Wikiversity, so i will make an end to it. I have started other topics in the past, so this or other topics can all still be chosen in the future. Got to go now, so i can't edit anymore. I see this community review as closed, unless someone else still wants to say something.--Daanschr 06:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be clear by now that it's manifestly impractical to undertake any serious academic project on Wikiversity, as the site clearly lacks the requisite academic culture to host any authentic scholarly studies. I am more than happy to collaborate with you in a suitable venue where we would not be subjected to recurring puerile disruptive pogroms by jejune characters who have no respect or regard for the principles of scholarly ethics.  —Barry Kort 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Barry, if you trust people more often, than that could certainly be possible. I am willing to cooperate with you if you stop attacking people in your post. i don't care what people think of me. I am here to start some projects and try to make them work. That's all.--Daanschr 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the "how to list a page here section", so I hope I am doing it right.--Daanschr 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Me neither :-). --SB_Johnny talk 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)