Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/11

Request action
This section was begun by KillerChihuahua as a request for oversight. In handling the request, a steward removed the entire section, but has provided what he considered the nonsensitive content. I'd have preferred more of it, with names only redacted, but stewards responding from meta can still read the original request, and I'm restoring this, here, for better transparency. --Abd 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

[original request, and my original support with additional evidence of outing, redacted. --Abd 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)]

In addition to the two I link above, and the rather obvious post Moulton has made immediately above, please also remove this. Moulton, refer to me as KC or KillerChihuahua if you expect a response. KillerChihuahua 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have made it abundantly clear that you have no intention of addressing my grievance with respect to your wretched conduct here on WV and previously on the English Wikipedia. —Moulton 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Notice of meta request for global lock. See . This request, if accepted by a steward, would return the situation to the status quo prior to the Ottava unblock of Caprice. It would still allow local control, though any local custodian acting, perhaps to whitelist-exempt one or both of these accounts, should certainly consider what is necessary for protection of users from outing and harassment. --Abd 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I regret that I have but 328,192 lives to give to my community. —Caprice 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet Another Report of Moulton Outing
I suggested that User:SB_Johnny, who acknowledged that he'd agreed to unblock User:Moulton on condition that Moulton not use real names of editors, look at edits after that agreement using the real name of a Wikipedia administrator. SBJ did not respond positively to this. Because another admin, on IRC, indicated to me a "hands off" attitude because SBJ was handling the situation, I asked SBJ to be clear about whether he intended to enforce the agreement. I'd pointed to an edit after the agreement and, and where Moulton had actually reverted him to insist on using real names again.

He responded, "No, it was actually yesterday afternoon [i.e., after that edit] when I talked to him about it. In any case, I really don't want to get in the middle of you two poking each other with sticks. If you want "CA", please go to "RCA".

Moulton just again used real names, with no apparent necessity. It's in the edit and the edit summary. And this was in response to SBJ, and SBJ responded to it, making no objection to the usage.

He's clearly not willing to enforcing the restriction and explicitly asked me to come here. The user has been multiply warned and was just unblocked upon a promise to stop doing this. Please check this and act as needed. --Abd 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He has been blocked for disregarding the privacy policy and the previous agreement to refer people by their chosen pseudonym. -- dark lama  11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating in our illustration of banal lunatic psychodrama. That was the clincher.  —Caprice 11:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Caprice has been blocked in addition. As expected, Moulton continues to edit as IP. My intention is to revert all these, at this point, without comment, with the following exceptions: I will not revert any IP edits to an administrator's talk page, or to this page (WV:RCA, because these will all be -- or should be -- immediately visible to an administrator, who can deal with problems if needed. If I revert edits, any registered user may, by taking responsibility for the content being appropriate for Wikiversity, revert them back in, and that is not revert warring, in itself. Reversion of block-evading edits is not a judgment on content, and it's been proposed that, even, bot reversion of edits from certain users in certain namespaces be routine, creating an automatic version of my "self reverted edits" proposals. There is, in fact, a bot that operates on Wikiversity, as an alternative to range blocks for certain spammers. Very simple, and avoids true censorship.
 * I also intend to log all such reversions, though not immediately. I did this before with Moulton, see User:Abd/Moulton edit review. For now, all I have time for is to do quick reversion as block enforcement.
 * Any registered user may do what I'm doing. These reversions are not censorship, because the content will normally be in history (if it's not, it's because, with everything I've seen, Moulton was using real names, outing -- real names are being censored and for good reason), available for restoration upon what amounts to a "second." IP blocks may be considered a kind of censorship. Moulton could make them unnecessary by assisting with block enforcement through self-reversion. Otherwise, he may succeed in irritating administrators enough that they go ahead with range blocks. His choice, really. --Abd 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Super. A whole lot of Cluster/B/Folks have come out to play today. It's a Cluster B Outing! —Gastrin Bombesin 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert all IP contributions presumed or believed to originate from Moulton. Reverting without consideration of the content would be punitive and not preventative. Reverting all contributions should only happen if there is a community consensus to do so. -- dark lama  16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh don't be such a spoilsport, Bilious. Let the poor guy have his thrillz.  —Gastrin Bombesin 16:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Revert, Block, Ignore principle only applies to banned editors, as stated in the banning policy. Therefore, you cannot unilaterally revert Moulton, in whatever genie form he chooses to take, without first discussing with the community consensus for your actions. Otherwise they could be deemed equally as inappropriate as Moulton's. TeleComNasSprVen 16:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, some of these IP addresses appear to resolve to verizon.net and thus appear to be Open proxies, so they may be perfectly capable of being blocked without regards to Moulton. TeleComNasSprVen 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The policies you link to are Wikipedia policies. Verizon is not an open proxy, it is an ISP. --SB_Johnny talk 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above)Thank you, Darklama. I am not reverting and do not intend to revert all contributions, only all contributions outside of certain talk spaces and one WV space, and may exempt others. A block is intended to stop all contributions, outside of certain exceptions. The reversion I'm doing is simply implementing a block, a little more deeply and intelligently. Given that what I'm doing is routine WMF practice, I will need to see a consensus against it, before voluntarily refraining, though, of course, any admin may warn me for specific actions and block if I disregard the warning. I will not continue if warned, I would then object, I presume, to the warning, so that the community may discuss it. Do we need this?
 * To emphasize this: a block is a pre-reversion of all contributions from a user. What I'm doing is extending this, essentially, to defacto range blocks without actual range blocks. If I make a mistake, if I'm excessive in some way, it is very easy to fix. Further, if you look at User:Abd/Moulton edit review, you will see that my action is far from censorship, and takes place with full respect for the community, and, as well, for Moulton and the possibility of positive contributions from him.
 * There is a reason for it being all contributions, which is it must be easy. I can look at Recent Changes and immediately detect and ignore edits to certain user talk spaces. At first, I imagined that there were many Moulton edits that would require reversion. In fact, there was only one, until his vandalism of the subject header here.
 * With a couple of users doing this -- or even only one! -- there is no need for range blocks, unless he makes it so by many outing edits. This is functional, efficient process, superior to draconian range blocks.
 * If content decisions are needed, this process becomes impossibly cumbersome, and, without process like this, communities then do completely exclude, it becomes too much trouble to sort the good from that bad.
 * With what I'm doing, the sorting can be done at leisure. Any registered user may undo my reversions. (IP users may revert, but this, then, creates identification and other problems, I will insist on it being a responsible user.) The edits are readily identifiable, and, Darklama, if you think what I'm doing is improper, you can, yourself, revert my reversions, you then become responsible for the content being appropriate.
 * TCNSV, my declared intention is based on analogy and the welfare of the wiki and the WMF as a whole, not policy. That an action is not prescribed or explicitly permitted by policy does not make it prohibited. Almost all editorial actions are "unilateral." If my reverts are wrong, if they harm the wiki, revert them! Above, you will see that this will not be considered revert warring, it will represent your personal decision that the wiki is better off with the edit you revert being replaced. There is now far more time being put into discussing this than is involved in actually doing it or undoing it. So, please, let's go back to developing educational resources.
 * Notice that TCNSV is really talking about extending blocks, while objecting with wikilawyering to a lesser measure, reversion of selected edits. Transparent.--Abd 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I accepted Moulton's revision of the section header, since it's actually appropriate. --Abd 16:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of it must be easy, doing nothing is the most easiest thing to do of all. Far easier than looking through Recent Changes for edits that might be from him. If you come across a discussion you happen to be reading and you notice a problem than do something. How hard is that? -- dark lama  16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but if that's the case what was the point of blocking his named accounts? The Abd vs. Moultonian Horde showdown pretty much makes watchlists useless for public discussion pages (since the only way to tell if someone else actually had something to say is to check the history of each page), which may or may not be a bigger problem than just going with the rangeblocks. If you're going to use the block, don't do it half-way. --SB_Johnny talk 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What is with your obsession about archiving stuff? "That an action is not prescribed or explicitly permitted by policy" does not make it acceptable either. Do you expect us to sort through your contributions and watch recentchanges to double-check the reverts that you make? And what about the mistakes that go unnoticed? TeleComNasSprVen 16:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)




 * Darklama and TCNSV, doing this properly is much easier than responding to questions here. If there is an actual problem, please bring it up in the appropriate venue. Thanks. --Abd 16:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an actual problem, Abd: the Colloquium is more or less scuttled for anyone who is trying to follow the actual conversations there (rather than watching the angler and the bass interact all day long) ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above) |68.163.111.162, apparently Moulton IP, is revert warring on the WV:Colloquium. I'm going to accept that edit, since it wasn't so bad, except for the repeated SBJ text. (See my history of restoring Moulton edits at User:Abd/Moulton edit review, but the revert warring by IP, Moulton standard tactic for daring admins to up the ante with range blocks, is a problem. --Abd 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an actual problem, SBJ, caused by IP revert warring. At any point, anyone could have stopped my side of this, simply by reverting my removal. You could have stopped it, in one of two ways or more. Instead you come here, for what? More talk? Take responsibility for what you do, SBJ, and for what you do not do. If enforcing a block is harming the wiki, then stop the enforcement, explicitly. If you don't mind Moulton bullying, openly defend it, don't just wring your hands and claim there is nothing we can do, as you did at meta. There was, here, revert warring by IP on the Colloquium, between the IP and a user enforcing a block, narrowly and with careful consideration, not as censorship, but still in a way that can be done efficiently, and what do you do? Complain about the user supporting the community? What you did not do: block the IP, and increase the range as necessary, temporarily, to stop the revert warring. Nor did you warn or block me. I'm sorry, in a way, to put you in this position, I believe you mean well. But I'm not going to lie down and play dead, I'll be actually dead soon enough. --Abd 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying it's your fault, Abd. We know from experience that there's absolutely no point in blocking Moulton's accounts without also blocking the ranges he uses. Darklama knows that too. All I'm saying is that today's problems are actually worse than yesterday's. --SB_Johnny talk 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fault-finding is not a particularly useful practice here, since it amounts to scapegoating some convenient individual for a pervasive systemic problem in the architecture of the system. I've pointed out any number of times, in any number of ways that WikiCulture adopted, evolved or otherwise mindlessly morphed into a classic and well-known dysfunctionality of the sort that Fyodor Dostoevsky brilliantly caricatured in his novels about the comparable dysfunctionality of Czarist Russia in the 19th Century.  I would appreciate it if somebody who can 1) understand my thinking and writing and who can 2) communicate ideas successfully to Abd, would do (2) with the content of (1).  —Moulton 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What I got from history is that people create extra work for themselves by reverting unnecessarily. Abd is doing the same thing Adambro tried to do before. I do not think there is a need to increase the range blocks just because an edit is made. What is the point? To minimize the impact and possible collateral damage that could be caused by blocking unnecessarily. I think Abd could do unnecessary harm by trying to revert most edits in most places. Even Wikipedia doesn't attempt to keep Moulton out by blocking IP addresses he uses on sight, unless he violates a specific policy. I think what has happened here in the past has gone a bit overboard. I think too much all or nothing (or black and white) thinking happens here. -- dark lama  21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're really not getting the point here. The point is very simple: if you think Moulton has a lot to offer and should only be "moderated" by people who happen to see a problem with his posts, then what was the point of blocking his accounts? You say it was to "prevent further disruption", but I don't see how his IP-based edits are any more or less disruptive than his edits using his account(s). Well, maybe I can see it as being more disruptive, but I can't see how it would be less disruptive.
 * BTW: I'm not sure how "Even Wikipedia doesn't [do x, y, or z]" can serve as an argument for anything at all, unless you think we should just adopt their policies and call it a day. --SB_Johnny talk
 * I think a person can have a lot to offer and also need to be blocked because they aren't following policies the community decided on. Abd suggested he would moderate Moulton's edits not me. Wikiversity policy says nothing about whether good faith edits by a block user should be reverted and the person re-blocked. Other projects usually suggest not to revert and re-block when good faith edits by a block user are made. I suggest that Wikiversity should strive to either do similar or better than that. I suggest blocking on sight is worse. Presumably if Moulton demonstrates an ability to respect policy for a time his blocks could be reconsidered. A contribution made while blocked is not in itself necessarily disruptive. In the past people tried the revert and block all approach which people were not happy with, and some people tried ignoring it which people were not happy with either. Both approaches can be seen as extremes. What I propose is a middle ground. Let the good stand, revert and block if and only if policy is violated. -- dark lama  02:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main effect of your autocratic actions today, besides slowing down the overall rate of progress of the academic discussion that SBJ initiated, is to sever the link that normally makes it possible to attribute work to the individual who authored it. I don't particularly want to be an anonymous or pseudonymous contributor to the academic discussions here, but you have unilaterally dictated that, without regard for the legitimate needs of future scholars to properly establish authorial credit for published work.  —Moulton 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "I think too much all or nothing (or black and white) thinking happens here."


 * I agree. Within Cluster B, find these two cases:

<dl><dd><dl><dd>

</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
 * Moulton 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Darklama, I'm not doing what Adambro tried to do. I have not asked for range blocks yet. I'm doing what I was doing before Adambro set the range blocks on his own initiative, and in spite of what I was doing, which was adequately protecting the wiki, in spite of Moulton screaming at me on the phone. If you look, you'll see that I restored almost everything. Adambro didn't like me allowing *anything*, and I couldn't directly confront Adambro then.
 * Darklama, please look at what I actually did today. I only reverted *one edit.* I ended up reverting it back in, and the revert warring could have been averted by anyone paying attention to that edit and accepting it. Most of Moulton's editing has been on the pages I declared exempt as to my personal intentions. I extended that to TSNSV talk because TCNSV objected to my reverting. I agree that what happened in the past was "overboard." I'm actually taking a middle path. Got better ideas? I'm all ears. --Abd 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above) SBJ, I disagree. Moulton responds to well-regulated response. He may test it to the hilt, but not forever. It takes a couple of minutes, at the most, to set up range blocks or to extend them. Once the ranges are known, it would take seconds to re-establish more extensive blocks if needed when they expire. Let him decide what he wants (by his actions, not his words). If he wants to be completely blocked, as Adambro managed last year, then he can create the situation to require that. (I think Adambro was excessive, not attending to how much actual disruption there was. Moulton wasn't outing at that point, and revision deletion wasn't necessary. I asked for custodial action only when Moulton revert warred.)
 * If Moulton wants to be able to make contributions with very little reduction in what he can do, he can do that. (see that user page I've been pointing to! Most of his edits ended up being reverted back in), as long as he doesn't out and doesn't revert war. He can make it difficult for himself, or not. We don't need to make it difficult for us. This is simple, SBJ, and, yes, I know exactly what Moulton does. He's quite predictable, for better and for worse. The Colloquium discussion was a mess before Moulton was blocked, though certainly some value was being created. Let it continue! Moulton can make contributions, and it takes almost no custodial attention, the way I'm doing it. Just revert warring (or outing) creates a more serious problem, requiring custodial action. Fix that, SBJ, don't just whine about how bad the problem is!


 * Moulton, you already communicated your ideas. You assume I don't understand them. You may be incorrect. But, hey, my office door is open, you are not banned from your own Talk page or mine (If I asked you to stop before, I hereby rescind that. Please don't give me reason to stop it again! Basically, don't revert war on my Talk page!) I'd also like everyone to notice that Moulton isn't being "gagged," at least not by me. All the edits he made so far today stand, except for outing edits revision-deleted by Darklama, if I'm correct. I reverted one edit, but he revert warred over that, not giving me time to review it. I reviewed it and replaced it. Moulton will scream that a scholar was bound and gagged and locked in the hall closet, but it's obviously not true. Fundamentally, he's deceptive, as to the real meaning of events. That's part of why his bullying is so offensive. --Abd 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Abd, if you consider reverting, partially reverting, or "redacting" Moulton's comments on public boards all day is a good use of your time, have at it. Since you're watching it so closely, perhaps I'll just rely on you to let me know if someone makes a meaningful comment I might want to read. Otherwise let me know when the Colloquium is available for meaningful discussion again (assuming you two will at some point wrap up the MMPORG and declare a winner). Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm here to collaborate on results-oriented projects, and you're making that far more difficult to follow than it really needs to be.
 * And as far as asking me to do the rangeblocks: Moulton is a friend of mine, and it's not fair to put me in charge of that. (Moulton knows better than to ask me to personally unblock him, it seems... why don't you know better?) --SB_Johnny  talk 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SBJ, I didn't ask you to rangeblock. I said that if you have a problem with the traffic on the Colloquium, due to revert warring there, blocking the IP -- which could possibly become a range block if he takes it there -- is an option. I'm also pointing out that any registered user can stop that revert warring, on the side of keeping Moulton's comments, by reverting them back in, I'd stop in a flash, as to any comment that any user has accepted. If Moulton keeps reverting them back in, there is no opportunity for another user to express support. And if nobody wants Moulton's comments, then ... what in the world is he dropping them there for?
 * If your opinion is that his comments should be allowed, SBJ, then why not tell Moulton you'll revert them back in yourself, when you get to them. I'd recommend you discourage him from doing his own "seconding." That does just what you don't like. Is he willing to provide you any quid pro quo?
 * There would be a way to unblock Moulton; he'd simply need to show that he can keep agreements, in spirit as well as to the letter. Frankly, I was surprised that he broke his agreement with you, I did not expect that from him. Live and learn. --Abd 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In Tracy Kidder's book, Among Schoolchildren, he tells the story of two incorrigible children, Clarence and Robert, whom the teacher, Mrs. Zajac, failed to connect with. It was a triple tragedy, because while Mrs Zajac was spending all that fruitless effort on Clarence and Robert, she was neglecting the other 20 children in the class who were there to learn.  I have noticed, in many venues, that children and adults who are not competitive with their cohorts will engage in all manner of disruptive behaviors that retard the rate of advance of everyone else.  At one point, the school systems adopted a policy of "No Child Left Behind." But the downside of that policy is that the class cannot advance any faster than the slowest child.  In every system, there are those who want to move faster than the median rate of progress and those who (for typically undiagnosed reasons) move slower than the median rate of progress.  It's important that the slowest and most resistant learners get the help they need so as not to retard the rate of advance of the whole community.  When I was in grammar school, I would take time to help the students who were struggling.  It wasn't until I was an adult that I began to run into people who were holding everyone else back and who also refused all good faith overtures to help speed them along.  I have never discovered a viable solution to this occasional, but recurring problem.  —Moulton  22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A solution to that problem might just be the "better mousetrap" of the OER movement. I doubt a learning on the subject would result in a eureka result, but perhaps it would be worth a try. --SB_Johnny talk 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike had reminded me of this problem a week or so ago when he brought the topic of Learning Styles. In the more recent research by Maggie Martinez, I pointed out the inherent conflict between Transforming Learners who push the envelope at the frontiers and Resistant Learners who work like the dickens hold everyone else back.  It occurred to me that Resistant Learners are roughly synonymous with Cluster/B/Folks, having roughly equivalent diagnoses of being both incorrigible and untreatable.  It's pretty clear to me that Resistant Learners and/or Cluster/B/Folks have a strong affinity and insatiable appetite for lunatic psychodrama.  That tells me that lunatic psychodrama is one of the few vehicles with enough emotional juice to jump start their learning after years and years of arrested development.  The other potentially successful vehicle is Comic Opera.  —Moulton 01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pointlessly going on a revert spree with someone else clutters up the contributions pages, the pagehistories of any pages affected by the back-and-forth revert, and is generally considered disruptive because we can't measure the extent of the potential help that it will bring forth over that of the potential damage any slight mistake will cause if it gets through unnoticed, or that someone objects but doesn't remember to revert back or doesn't catch one revert out of many other cluttered ones. TeleComNasSprVen 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC) <BR> <Big><Big>Funeral March of the Marionettes</Big></Big> Midi Audio

<BR>
 * The idea here is that if you can't tell the good reverts from the bad ones, then everything will be better off if you don't revert at all. TeleComNasSprVen 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I don't agree with that as a default. Reverting the contributions of a blocked or banned editor is standard on many wikis, and there is no policy against it here, so, in the absence of policy, I'll do what I think best for the wiki. We are spending more time discussing this here than it takes to do it, and than it would take to stop it. This page is not the page to debate this, in fact. Is someone requesting custodian action here? I wrote above that I'd close this, but wasn't going to, precisely because I think some would disagree. See TCNSV's comment, written when I previously wrote that I'd close this, but wasn't going to. This is argument for the sake of argument, bad news. --Abd 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a dog show, Abd. TeleComNasSprVen 03:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The dog was a no-show. —Albatross 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moulton blocked. I'm closing this RCA without prejudice, any registered user may re-open. Moulton continued to insist on outing after being again warned by Mu301, and after revision deletions by a steward. SBJ blocked. --Abd 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per our telephone agreement of an hour ago, SB Johnny rescinded his previous request regarding acceptable ways to refer to the Evil Death Eater Bitch, and said that he didn't mind if I continued our Po-Mo Theater of the Absurd with a new scene, under slightly different terms. So, per Mike's edict, I will no longer refer to the Evil Death Eater Bitch by her real name.  In this new scene, in which we complete our community discussion to decide on the correct interpretation of the local Privacy Policy, I will be participating under my new preferred name.  Per Mike's edict, please be sure to call me by the name I now prefer to be known as.  —Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Silly Diagnostic Analyst of Pervasively Dysfunctional Systems Hopelessly Overrun by Incorrigible Cluster/B/Folks 22:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Request was closed with Edits oversighted, Moulton and Caprice accounts blocked by SB_Johnny --Abd 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopened because the above edit by Moulton, made as IP block evasion, which had been reverted by Mu301, was restored by Moulton after Moulton was unblocked by SBJ on a promise to not use real names. The unblock of an editor who is actively block evading is unusual, particularly without any explicit on-wiki promises to avoid other disruptive aspects of the editing. I have notified SBJ of the restoration of "Death Eater Bitch," and Moulton reported that SBJ was "fine with it." SBJ confirmed this, essentially, read [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=710559#This_was_an_improvement_only_in_a_narrow_technical_sense. the actual comments]. Custodian attention is requested. (It has been requested on IRC as well.) --Abd 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd, you silly schmendrick. SBJ knew in advance, understood, and expressly stated that he fully expected me to post as an IP after he and Mike acted like Baletocratic BlockHeads.  Next time, read the phreaking libretto.  —Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Silly Diagnostic Analyst of Pervasively Dysfunctional Systems Hopelessly Overrun by Incorrigible Cluster/B/Folks 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Request at meta for global lock reopened, due to SBJ's apparent declining of action; his block had been reason to close that request, and I assumed he'd monitor and supervise to prevent the kind of disruption that reappeared. --Abd 13:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do so love a peripatetic protagonist. —Gastrin Bombesin 14:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Meta request closed, inaction supported by SBJ and Mikeu, who must be considered responsible for continued disruption here. Looking back, why didn't I notice this before? I'm taking a wikibreak while I consider further action. It would be nice to come back and find this sorted, eh? --Abd 16:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hiatus and Hegira are good exit strategies at a time like this. —Moulton 16:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moulton continues with insistent outing edits. See, redacted by SBJ with , replaced with (as Caprice), redacted a bit more extensively by me with , and again reverted in by Moulton with . Moulton is violating the unblock condition. It means nothing if not enforced. --Abd 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could persuade ArbCom to take it up. Or the Supreme Court of the States of Florida, California, and/or Massachusetts. Or perhaps you can find someone in New Jersey who you can hire for $1000 to whack Moulton. Seems to me you have lots of unexplored options to punish Moulton as severely as you like, per your personal ethics and/or deeply held religious teachings.  —Caprice 18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not remotely interested in punishment. I'm interested in protecting the wiki from disruption, harming its educational purpose, and the full WMF community from harassment hosted here, likewise causing harm. That Moulton alleges a punitive motive is just another extension of his common mud-tossing. I'm asking for enforcement of policy, not punishment, period. Blocks aren't punishment, though some might use them that way.
 * Moulton has, here in this section, posted using three clearly different apparent user names: Moulton, Gastrin Bombesin, and Caprice, plus the "Silly Diagnostic Analyst." For using one obvious pseudonym in a Community Review, not in such a way as to deceive a naive reader as to multiple supports, my sock account was immediately blocked by Mu301. There is preferential administrative treatment of Moulton here, as, in fact, there was in 2008, leading to outside intervention as it continued, leading to the emergency desysop of JWSchmidt and other long-term mess, and the same two custodians are involved, obstructing attempts to actually deal with the problem, while maintaining a minimal appearance of handling it. Most custodians have pulled back in disgust. --Abd 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Caprice (Moulton) refusing to accept request to stay off my user talk page.
After revert warring to restore content that I'd removed, upon which I requested he stay off my user page, Caprice posted another comment without any necessity. I removed it, indicating intention to come here. He again edited, using the edit summary to convey his message, which will create a standard email notification. Someone tell him again that Wikiversity is not his soapbox, and that users have a right to refuse discussion with him on their own Talk pages. Better yet, return him to his peculiar natural condition, blocked. He's been warned over and over and over and over.

Moulton's message was (I conclude that you do not subscribe to Scholarly Ethics, Mr, Feynman.) That is classic Moulton, if anyone decides that his rants have become useless junk, they are unethical.

Moulton was unblocked by SBJ upon an agreement to stop using "real names." He's still doing it, with. At, Moulton has argued that outing is justified if the person has, outside this wiki, revealed their name. That argument has previously been rejected, and he could be expected to know that.

His edit cited above, using the apparent real name of a Wikipedia administrator, was a restoration of what had been removed.--Richard P. Feynman 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard P. Feynman is an acknowledged sock of User:Abd, report filed under this name for obvious reasons, otherwise I'd have filed it as Abd.

And this, this time as Moulton. --Abd 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I knew Richard P. Feynman to be an avuncular good-humored scientist with a collegial and congenial demeanor. Richard P. Feynman was a beloved role model of mine.  And Mr. Lomax, you're no Richard. P. Feynman.  —Moulton 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard Moulton claim to have met Feynman. I spent perhaps more than eighty hours with him. And, in fact, I am User:Richard P. Feynman. Moulton is not. All this is irrelevant, as usual. Above, I quote Moulton addressing me as "Mr. Feynman" and accusing me of "not subscribing to Scholarly Ethics." He seems to have conflated "avuncular, collegial, and congenial" with "ethical." In fact, I practiced all four qualities, with Moulton, for the better part of a year, as can be seen by reviewing the history of my interactions with him. I remain ethical, I hope, but I'm no longer collegial, because I do not recognize Moulton as a colleague. That's not how he's functioning, period. He is a troll, out to attack and humiliate and offend, as a personal agenda masquerading as "scholarly research," which it certainly has not been, being full of polemic and dramatic accusation. And, yes, I'd toss him out of my office, and call the campus cops if he insisted on remaining. And if the campus police don't respond, I'll either conclude that the campus isn't a safe place, and move elsewhere, or call other police having jurisdiction. --Abd 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let a candid world decide for themselves. —Moulton 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:JWSchmidt, disruptive edit to WV:Privacy policy.
. This is JWSchmidt fired up by Moulton, disruptively editing a WV policy. He's been blocked before for edits not as offensive as this one. Were I a custodian, I'd short-block, or until he agrees to not edit like this. As I may be considered "involved," though, in fact, my goal has long been to encourage JWS to move on and to participate constructively with the community, I'd immediately consult.... Given his history, though, that edit is cause to block without warning. Please warn and/or block. --Abd 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that your hypothesis regarding his motivation to raise to your attention the lack of consensus when Ottava railroaded the Policy through the Ratification Process? —Moulton 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If I "raised attention" to a page like that, I'd fully expect to be warned and blocked. JWS has been warned about this before, and even blocked before, so, as could be expected, the block was for longer. A longer block can be reduced, but, I'd expect, JWS would need to promise to not do this kind of thing again. He called attention, if that was what he wanted to do, with one edit. If I were going to do something like that, and for some reason commenting on the talk page wasn't enough, I'd self-revert, announcing that, and doing it promptly. But, in fact, in a situation like this, the Talk page is enough.
 * Moulton took this to the talk page, see . If this was "railroading," so is a cement foundation. --Abd 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * JWS revert warred on the policy page edit, This policy page continues to be censored) --Abd 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * JWS blocked by User:Darklama. --Abd 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to state the obvious. DarkLama is responsible enough to declare her actions on this page if she deems it necessary. TeleComNasSprVen 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious to some not obvious to others. Status reports on requested action are appropriate here. This is also, my opinion, not the best place to discuss actions. With my comment above, someone could decide to go to User talk:Darklama or User talk:JWSchmidt to assist or advise. If someone wants to request another custodian review this, they could do so here. Etc. --Abd 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping anyone reading discussion informed is good. Allows discussion to progress on to what to do next if anything. I would of responded, but I felt it might be redundant since Abd had already mentioned it. I should note I was already in the process of blocking JWS before seeing the second edit by JWS though. The second edit was much like the first. I do have one question for people to consider. Should the block be extended to take into account the second edit, or is 1 month long enough? -- dark lama  23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Binding, gagging, and locking a fellow scholar in the janitorial hall closet is a juvenile thing to do. It's inconsistent with the concept of an authentic learning community.  —Moulton 01:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is bound, nobody is gagged, and nobody is locked in the closet. However, some people are juvenile. And some people want an authentic learning community that isn't about getting revenge on everyone Moulton disagrees with. Or, indeed, about JWS rehearsing his litany of complaints from 2008, where he was quite badly treated, whether or not he'd done something wrong. See User:Abd/Community Review/JWSchmidt where I'm taking a peek at the past. Can of worms. --Abd 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the extending the length would achieve anything. This is more or less the same kind of thing that led to the 2008 actions in the first place, so blocking clearly isn't an effective way of giving him a message. --SB_Johnny talk 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarifying my comment here for the person who found it confusing: I'm just not sure I understand the question about the length of the block. If the block is meant to be "punitive", then perhaps the length should be made to suit the "crime". However, as JWS has pointed out in his unblock request, it's not even clear what policy was being violated. Yes, you could "indef block him" until he agrees not to do... well, what, exactly? We could (and IMO should) refine our policies a bit, and in fact that's (part of) why I brought up the issue of pedagogy and discussion style on the Colloquium. However, if the purpose of the block is to give him some time to think about things so he won't do it again, I really think it won't have that effect. I'm not saying that he wasn't being disruptive, but the fact is that we just don't have a policy defining disruption. --SB_Johnny talk 17:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocks are meant to prevent continuation of counterproductive actions that take time away from collaborative pursuits in line with the Wikiversity mission and scope. The second edit suggests the first edit was considered productive and appropriate, while the undo of the first edit was considered inappropriate and counterproductive. I ask if an extension is needed, because the second edit and the response to the block suggest that until things are explained by someone he trusts and believes to be honest, and regardless of what the community decides, similar actions will continue. Wikiversity has a scope and mission to consider, even if the webster dictionary's definition of disruption is ignored. -- dark lama  18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To my mind, Ottava railroading that policy through ratification against strenuous objections that not enough people had thought it through is not exactly a shining example of collaboration. And it's most definitely not an instance of consensus.  To my mind, it's inappropriate and uncollegial for one person to railroad a policy that clearly had not been carefully thought through by more than a tiny handful of people who were around during the summer break, half of whom are no longer even here.  —Moulton 18:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whether you're right or wrong about that, the fact is that there is an ongoing Community Review on that very subject (listed on the sitenotice, in fact), so the community has already been invited to rectify any problems with that policy. JWSchmidt has already participated in that review, so we can safely assume that he's aware of it. We've rarely had more than 10 votes in a policy discussion (small town, etc.), so we can't really expect more than a handful. The point of CR is to allow flexibility as the community grows, and to centralize discussion in order to encourage as much participation as possible. JWSchmidt himself "passed" quite a number of "policies" with no discussion whatsoever, iirc. --SB_Johnny talk 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that JWS is clearly on record as the most vocal opponent of the policy that Ottava unilaterally declared to have been ratified, it's essential that his voice not silenced during this open review of an arguably flawed policy, and especially not silenced by a questionable unilateral autocratic maneuver by one of the authors of the policy in question. To my mind, it's a primary conflict of interest and abuse of power for a key supporter of the policy to summarily silence the voice of the opposition, without justification and without due process.  —Moulton 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that he was fully aware that his edits to the policy page would be seen as disruptive. I agree with you otherwise: his voice would be good to have in the CR. OTOH, he's already made it clear that he finds CR to be illegitimate in general... perhaps you could convince him otherwise on that point (I'm quite certain I personally couldn't), and perhaps you could get him to agree to focus on discussing the policy rather than vandalizing it. If you can do both those things, I might respond to an unblock request that reflected such a change of approach. --SB_Johnny talk 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno that I'd assume anything about another person's frame of mind, especially when it comes to anticipating what another person will do in an improvisational sketch here in Schadenfreude Theater of the Absurd. But JWS and I both favor a Truth and Reconciliation Process, which I reckon is the most appropriate method for putting an end to the Lunatic Psychodrama that's become the daily dish of this silly soap opera. Can you agree to participant in a sincere Truth and Reconciliation Process?  —Moulton 21:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to mediate, I might give it a shot. You'll probably need to be a very active mediator though, because I'm not inclined to respond to JWS if he can't manage to ease up on the hyerbole and assumptions of bad faith. --SB_Johnny talk
 * We can devise a way. I'll do shuttle diplomacy if necessary.  —Moulton 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts!) At this point, and given all the history and precedent, SBJ should not make himself the sole arbiter. Convince Darklama, at this point, that unblock is appropriate, no problem. Without that, a community discussion would be needed, my opinion, this is not a short-term issue. If you look at the JWS block record (see User:Abd/Community Review/JWSchmidt for a beginning study), he was unblocked quite a number of times on some shaky grounds, what amounted to wikilawyering, i.e., something like "there was a defect in the block or the blocking admin was involved, therefore I'm unblocking." (I hasten to add that it looks to me, also, that the original serious blocks of JWS were abusive in certain ways. That's another issue.) If Moulton could mediate, great! I've asked him to do this in the past, he always told me it was hopeless. Another possible option, which SBJ and Darklama and others might look at, is unblocking on a short leash. Clear restrictions, easy to understand, that can be appealed and discussed, but that will be enforced ad interim. Enforced by a known admin or anyone other who supports it. Whatever it takes to protect the community from having to deal with disruptive edits and the fallout from them. It's tragic that this is coming up for JWS, for he is far from being the biggest problem editor we have. I'd prefer so see some clear standards in place, with procedure for even and reliable enforcement, with a total amnesty for everything that came before. Centaur of attention would be unblocked, for example, if he asked for it and agreed to the new standards.... --Abd 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, do you think I volunteered to be the "sole arbiter"? Any custodian can respond to the unblock request, Abd. I was simply saying (in public, etc.) that I (me, SB_Johnny) would consider it if certain conditions were to arise. I haven't responded to the unblock request so far, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't. You seem to be a bit wrapped up in your interpretation of things, tbh. --SB_Johnny talk 21:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a general comment, based on what you wrote, SBJ, and on the history of JWS and you and the community. You wrote, "I might respond to an unblock request ..." and my comment suggested that would be unwise at this time. If you read the unblock request, and in context, and I won't explain it in detail, creating even more mess here, for you to personally intervene here would be what I wrote. There have been too many blocks and unblocks related to JWS that were "my opinion" blocks and unblocks, not enough "serving the community." Here, I reported an "action" that JWS took, and, as you know, it's quite like what he's done in the past, and which he was blocked for. I also wrote, Were I a custodian, I'd short-block, or until he agrees to not edit like this. If you or someone can persuade JWS to agree to stay within what's reasonable, that would be the second part, which is, my view, as expressed after I was asked, that "indef block" -- pending agreement -- was cleanest and simplest.


 * Did you actually volunteer to be the "sole arbiter"? What does that matter, SBJ? You and I are not the topic here. My advice was largely directed at you, because of your history with JWS, but would apply to any sysop. This has gone beyond an ordinary ad hoc situation. And there is no legitimate basis for unblock in the current unblock request. But, of course, that could change. It's not going to be you who negotiates this, nor should it be you who judges it. Darklama is very inclined to be fair, my sense. And there are other custodians, I'm just recommending that a custodian not jump into this breech without discussing it with the community. There is, however, the "short leash" option, which could mean immediate unblock. But, then, the unblocking custodian would have to hold that leash or make sure someone responsible is holding it! --Abd 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The main reason for SBJ not to respond is to give Bilious the Kid a chance to correct his own error first. Only if Bilious the Kid fails to clean up his messes should SBJ clean it up for him.  And then, maybe consider taking the mop and bucket away from the Kid.  —Moulton 21:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the hyper-dramatized conception of the situation that JWS and Moulton have promoted for two years.

<BR>
 * When Moulton was blocked, he evaded his block with IP edits, routinely. Those were being reverted by Adambro or Ottava, mostly. I asked Moulton to self-revert, so that I could then act to prevent IP blocking, since self-reverted edits are far less disruptive. I'd done this with Thekohser, he cooperated, and Thekohser ended up being unblocked as a result, having established, then, a record of constructive contributions. Moulton only used this in a disruptive way, it was abandoned. But I realized that I was in a stronger position to bring Moulton's positive contributions back in if I reverted them first. So I started doing it. Then I'd post my intention to revert back what I thought was acceptable. And, with a decent pause, reverted them back in. I got a little flak that went nowhere. So Moulton was able to make constructive edits. But, after a time, Adambro still extended the range blocks, and I wasn't ready to confront that, and Moulton had made no agreement to avoid his extreme actions, so there it sat. However, there were some edits Moulton had made, where JWS was the ideal editor to decide if they were good or not. So I asked JWS to look at them. No response. I asked again. No response. JWS could have been doing, himself, what I'd been doing, and could thus have made sure that his friend was not "silenced." He didn't. My conclusion has been that JWS was more interested in complaining about "censorship" than in actually fixing the situation.
 * And now it's turned around. Moulton is free to edit, at the moment. JWS could make a suggestion on his own Talk page, and Moulton could cite it in a discussion, taking responsibility for it. If Moulton does what JWS did, he'd probably be blocked. But JWS wasn't discussing the privacy policy, he was vandalizing it. His comment would have been acceptable on Talk. For reasons of efficiency, self-reverted edits are far easier to review and decide to accept or not, than suggestions in some other place. But many think I'm crazy for suggesting self-reversion. In reality, self-reversion works, in a sane community. It is a way for a banned editor to make positive contributions without disrupting ban enforcement. All it takes for a full implementation is realizing that there isn't a need to do anything about a self-reverted edit, as long as someone doesn't complain that the content needs revision deletion! I saw self-reversion "per ban" work on Wikipedia, to bring about cooperation between editors where one had requested the ban for the other.... with this in place a ban is, really, only a requirement that an editor's contributions "seconded." And by self-reverting, the editor is demonstrating cooperation with a community, accepting that, for the moment, they are only able to legitimately edit this way. It helps if there is an editor in good standing who agrees to watch for the edits. If they all come from the same IP, they are easy to follow. Even better, a sock account is allowed, that has agreed to self-revert (and is openly identified with the main account) -- that's how it was started with Thekohser. So, say, if Abd were blocked, but User:Richard P. Feynman could edit, RPF would only edit with self-reversion "per ban." And if nobody wants to present what RPF is writing to the community, by reverting it back in, Abd and RPF would eventually go away, realizing that, truly, they were not wanted. It's natural consequences.
 * More than this, I stand ready to assist any user, on request, who is blocked or banned, agreeing to review their contributions, if they will identify themselves and self-revert. (Maximally disruptive puppet masters won't do this.) I will restore these edits if, in my opinion, they are not disruptive in themselves. I will do this in a way that allows the community to object to specific edits, transparently. Others will also be able to see all these edits and might decide to accept something that I'd reject. I will defend self-reverted edits and oppose block-evasion blocks for them, as long as they do not require revision deletion (i.e., generally, outing edits or truly gross incivility). And I will encourage other users to do the same. Any user could already do what I'm suggesting. This doesn't make me into the Censor of Wikiversity, it makes me, and anyone who joins me, into the Anti-Censor. While supporting order and sane process. --Abd 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, gotcha. I guess the "nutshell" of what I'm trying to say is that a block of any finite length isn't likely to achieve much (other than ticking him off). If you think we will be able to craft a policy that addresses this within a month (or whatever length you were considering), he might at least be satisfied that everyone else is expected to follow the same rules he has to follow (or he might not, since the matter at hand here suggests that he doesn't think another policy is valid/wise/good).
 * I'm not trying to be unhelpful here for the sake of being unhelpful: it's just that we've been here before, and I don't see how we should expect the same action to have a different result. We need to improve our policy structure, so that (to paraphrase JT) we can "play the ball, and not the man". --SB_Johnny talk 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What has been done many times is to assume that a block "sends a message." Blocks don't send messages, they protect. The problem becomes manifest when the user either "serves the term" or is unblocked, but without any agreement as to ongoing behavior. It is not surprise that a block has not "worked," as to reforming the user. People do not respond well to punishment, and restriction can easily look like punishment, even if it isn't intended punitively. JWS has suffered enough, and I withdrew support from the prior discussion about a ban precisely because he was being harassed at the time and there was no plan for establishing supervision (which is what I'd been proposing -- with no support at all, while there was substantial support for an indef block or ban.) An indef block simply protects until there is some reason to think that the protection is not needed. I'd be willing to say that a year might be enough to try as a default period, even with the history. That, indeed, is why I blocked Ottava for a year, instead of, say, two weeks or a month. The problem wasn't going to go away, but, maybe in a year.... And with anyone blocked, if they agree to stop the problem behavior, we do not punish, and only if they break a promise would we need to then depend on something other than promises. As I explain above, there are even those options, that still allow positive behavior while preventing damage from negative behavior. This is not about JWS, it is, indeed, about structure and process. If we have the process, handling problems with JWS -- or anyone -- becomes easy. Without the process, we get these train wrecks of discussions, wasting an enormous amount of time, with little improvement. --Abd 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocks are only primitively "messages." They don't generally educate. They are only properly used to protect the wiki and community. A short block can give a message that one is serious. What SBJ says here may indicate what's going on. He's trying to educate Moulton. Persuade him to stop outing with the CR. Since it's been proven that "blocking clearly isn't an effective way of giving him a message." That's true! But that doesn't mean that we don't block. --Abd 13:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to interpret everything I say as being part of an unspoken agenda. My comment was in reply to darklama's question about block length (and to some degree your comment about "restrictions"). He's not playing the part of moulton's meatpuppet, and moulton is not playing the part of his. --SB_Johnny talk 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? I apologize for mentioning Moulton here, but the comment about JWS led me to some understanding, possibly, of what SBJ's approach has been, and why. He's free to remain mysteriously incomprehensible if he wishes. No charges of meat puppetry have been made, at all. JWS and Moulton are users who are somewhat allied, that's all. That's not a crime. --Abd 21:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now do you see why I propose we establish a Wikiversity Dramaturgy Department for hopelessly incorrigible characters who desperately want to create sensational imaginary parallel universes and ludicrous flights of fancy where everyone in the play haphazardly mismodels the world around them, and especially mischaracterizes the mindsets of all the other preposterous characters in the shared hallucinatoric lunatic scapegoat psychodrama? —Moulton 14:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that JWS has been, for two years, expressing what he expressed in those edits, consistently, and has not been willing to take part in constructively repairing the damage, just in complaining about what happened so long ago, and which he believes continues, there is no basis for thinking that there will be any improvement in a month. I attempted to deal with the situation through a topic ban, prohibiting edits to WV space, but allowing him to make ordinary content contributions to educational resources. At any time, an indef block (infinite is all that WV allows) could be lifted under probation, which I would interpret as a promise to comply with stated restrictions. He'd be free to appeal those restrictions, an exception to a WV space topic ban, but he'd not be allowed to do this indefinitely and continually. He could obtain a mentor, someone he trusts, that the community would approve as allowing him to participate in WV space discussions.
 * He has previously used mainspace for uncivil criticism of a WV editor; obviously, if he repeated that, he'd be blocked, again until he agrees not to do it. I'd start by trusting him to keep his word. If he can't do that, then he'd have to be blocked, and to remain blocked. But even then, if he wants to, he could make contributions to educational resources, or even contribute to discussions in the same way that Moulton was allowed to do so from time to time, while formally blocked.
 * Bottom line: The second edit shows the strong disruptive intention, so, yes. Increase the block to indef. Anyone may start a CR to review this. With less evidence, JWS narrowly escaped being banned last year. I propose no bans, I propose editing restrictions, clear, fair, flexible, but firm. If you increase the block due to the revert warring, you can then act as a block supervisor, trying, as it seems prudent, lifting it upon some reasonable agreement. If there is no reasonable agreement, there it sits until and unless some other custodian reviews it, preferably either with consultation with you or with the community.
 * One objection, though. Moulton has been far more disruptive than JWS. So why is it JWS who is blocked for a single edit, even though JWS was warned quite a while ago, while Moulton is currently disregarding warnings, policies, promises and common ethics, and ... he's free to edit. --Abd 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

<BR>


 * Indef block + Wikiversity:Request custodian action thread = ban. Indef itself is not a ban until the community deems it so appropriate, as it does if this thread succeeds with an indef-block outcome on JWS. (And I thought you hated bans, Abd.) TeleComNasSprVen 06:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that bans are mostly disruptive and unnecessary. Wikipedia has "infinite" block and "indef" block, and the difference is mostly ignored. The only real difference is that with a ban, properly, an admin cannot unilaterally unblock, except for special purpose for a limited time, and taking responsibility for supervision -- or seeing that somebody does. With a block, any admin may unblock, though it's considered wheel-warring to do it without attempting discussion with the blocking admin. Moulton claims that he was not banned on Wikipedia, and technically it's a bit obscure, because Moulton's "ban" was the "defacto ban" of nobody being willing to unblock, but it was also discussed, which makes it more like a "community ban." An admin who unblocks Moulton on Wikipedia should be prepared to duck. Because, the fact is, he's banned. Without the notary seal. Moulton was unblcoked on Wikiversity by Ottava, about to be desysopped, a lame duck unban. Adambro objected, and blocked, based on "ban." I pointed out that Adambro was definitely involved. That didn't mean, to me, "unblock," but Adambro took it that way and unblocked. And retired. Sensible guy, he knew what was coming!
 * No, I don't want to exclude JWS from Wikiversity. I want his contributions to be regulated, preferably by him. Given the history, he's not prepared to do that yet, so he needs assistance, filtering. 'Twere it up to me, I'd do it differently, but the software doesn't have the tools. We can manage it manually, if needed, but it would take community support for the process. We don't have that yet. --Abd 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sod off. What exactly does extending a block to "indefinite" &mdash; and indefinite could very well "infinite", for very many such blocks become forgotten (cf. similar things implying that "indefinite" = "infinite") &mdash; what exactly do such blocks accomplish that a one-month wikibreak can't? How long do you exactly plan to "protect" the wiki from JWS; why does any further custodian action seem necessary, and isn't the purpose of a wiki supposed to be open to editing for all? Is their anything educational in an indefinite block, over a month-long one given for him to recuperate, or can you consider the message an indef block would give him, that he is worthless to this wiki as an individual? Apparently you don't know what an indef feels like. TeleComNasSprVen 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been indef blocked, I know what it feels like (disconcerting, until realization of freedom!) and I'm not the subject of this RCA request, please don't divert us from the issue. The decision is the custodian's, not mine. Further comment should be as I suggested above, on the relevant talk pages. I answered the question that Darklama asked here. "Sod off"? Hello? --Abd 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the "sod off" comment is not helpful. --SB_Johnny talk 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Go jump in the lake," as it's more clearly a reference to the Second Law of Hammurabi. The fact that one is jumping in from the sod grass on the edge of the lake is a bit too obcsure for most people to appreciate. Moulton 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Banhammerama
<Blockquote> Banhammerama<BR> Guajira Banhammerama<BR> Banhammeraaaama<BR> Guajira Banhammerama<BR> <BR> <Small>With apologies to Joséito Fernández, Julio Iglesias, José Feliciano, and Wyclef Jean</Small> </Blockquote>

Revert warring at Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence
Abd and Moulton appear to have been revert warring for some time now at [ the above talkpage in question] so there would need to be: at best a protection of the talkpage and at worst a block of either user. The first option is silly, because talkpages are meant for open discussion by any user who wishes to talk about its subject page, regardless of whether or not they are blocked, banned or a sock, and the latter option doesn't seem too compromising as a solution.

Abd, if you want to revert Moulton, and I'll keep hammering this into you, get community consensus first. You can only and should only apply Wikipedia:Revert to banned users, as per the instructions in the banning policy, not blocked users. There has so far been no consensus for such a ban placed on Moulton. This is like asking for CheckUser help from stewards before seeking community consensus. Please don't. TeleComNasSprVen 08:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection of the page is an option, a normal one on other wikis.
 * Warning of Abd by a custodian is an option. The warning should be specific, citing a specific example. If Abd is warned, Abd responds, particularly to a warning by a custodian, on his Talk page.
 * Warning of Moulton is possible, but likely useless. Moulton does not respond to warnings from anyone under the WMF umbrella.
 * Blocking of either or both users is an option; however, Moulton is block evading, and Abd is enforcing a block. If the user is to be allowed to edit, the user should be allowed, by a custodian willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
 * Do consider that whatever Moulton can do, Abd can also do. Permit Moulton to do a thing, everyone is permitted. "Exceptions" have been allowed on Wikipedia, with poor consequences. Policies should be evenly enforced.
 * There is no ban on Moulton. There is a block, and enforcement of blocks is totally normal.
 * This is not based on w:WP:BAN. *Please avoid hammering, when it's a screwdriver that's needed. --Abd 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's not banned, why are you reverting him? --SB_Johnny talk 14:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know the answer to that mystery. —Montana Mouse 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His edits will be restored if any registered user finds them useful or at least is willing to take responsibility for allowing them. So why is he reverting?
 * I'm reverting because he's blocked. Just like a block, I'm reverting based on a very simple algorithm, just not quite so simple. This could, in fact, be done by bot.
 * He's blocked because too high a percentage of his edits required administrative attention, such as revision deletion.
 * My algorithm is to revert all edits outside of custodian talk pages or a few other talk pages of users known to be willing to accept Moulton edits, plus this page. That is all edits, normally, not just "bad ones." I'm deliberately avoiding evaluating the edits. Evaluation comes later. If Moulton were willing to self-revert, this would be superior. If he were willing to presubmit edits, to, say, his user Talk page, they could be copied by any registered user to a target page, with assignment of authorship. If he were to cooperate with the community as to behavioral guidelines, including ethical guidelines, he could be unblocked, and it could easily be arranged for intermediate steps to be taken. It is his refusal to cooperate that has led to the trilemma of (1) toleration of disruption -- which includes revert warring without any legitimacy, (2) block with toleration of IP edits, or (3) range block.
 * The problem of many edits to pages, caused by repeated reversion, is caused by Moulton's unwillingness to cooperate with the community, on many levels and in many ways. I consider this a minor problem, in fact. Some editors make lots of edits where others will make one....
 * The distinction between ban and block is only useful in terms of understanding the discretion that custodians have to lift blocks. Generally, socking, by concealed account (Moulton doesn't do this) or by IP, is a violation of obvious de-facto policy. It can sometimes be done for limited purposes, but not as Moulton uses it. Moulton is defying the right of the Wikiversity community to regulate his behavior, and he's done precisely the same thing with the other wikis, for years. I'm defending the right of the community, which is crucial.
 * If any custodian wants to stop me, it's easy, but it will require taking responsibility. My opinion is that the refusal of the custodial community to collectively take responsibility is what caused the massive disruptions of 2008 and 2010, leading users like Centaur of attention to insist and push, themselves outside of norms. When a violation of policies and neglect of the welfare of the community and wiki becomes common, it encourages more violations by others.
 * To stop me, a custodian may simply warn me that I will be blocked if I continue, with a clear specification of the prohibited behavior. To stop any particular revert war, any custodian or registered editor may simply revert one of my reversions. I will not revert war with a responsible editor. If the status of the edit is that Moulton's version is standing, a comment to my Talk page should suffice, unless I'm in-process, in which case I would revert myself with a note pointing to the comment. --Abd 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to assume you're perfectly aware of the glaring logical inconsistencies in your system, and conclude that you are running some sort of experiment. Carry on, and (again) let me know when we can get back to having actual discussions. Just to be clear though: pretty much everyone who has commented on this has made it clear that you're being disruptive, and you carry on nonetheless, so you're not necessarily going to get a "warning" since the issue has already been made quite clear to you. --SB_Johnny  talk 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Carry on"? Abd's been wasting everyone's time, is generally being disruptive, and is allowed to maintain his disregard for other users' asking him to stop? TeleComNasSprVen 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should he stop? He's got Billy the Kid on the hook playing Chief of Police, and they're having fun playing Cops and Robbers.  Let them get it out of their system.  It's only a silly children's game.  It's not like it's stopping any real scholars from learning, is it?  —Montana Mouse 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(<---)Adb, thanks for the laugh. That was the funniest thing I've read in a while. Please don't take offense, but the below is an attempt to provide some sort of clue about what I found funny. WAS 4.250 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

His edits will be restored by magic (ya don't think I'm gonna do this 24/7 do ya; my time ain't worthless) if any registered user finds them useful (even as an example of what not to do).

I'm reverting every edit that he makes cause cuz I can - sez so right in Wikipedia. I call him blocked before he call me blocked, and no fair changing rules mid-game. I can run up my edit count wicked fast and even faster when I run the like totally rad winningest bot I'm writing. I'll be giving Barry a bot so the whole thing can be automated and I'll level up really fast.

He's blocked because too high a percentage of his edits required administrative attention, so the solution is to make 100% of his edits require administrative attention. Duhhh!

It is his refusal to respect my authority that forces me to (1) ignore his edit contributions that do not respect my authority, or (2) ignore IPs that do not respect my authority, or (3) block everybody. His disruptiveness is forcing me to block everyone. We must destroy wikiversity to save it.

My making the edit histories hard to follow is all Moulton's fault cause he won't do what I tell him.

If any custodian wants to stop me, all they have to do is whatever I say; Moulton won't obey me, so I need someone else to play with. Specify what I did wrong to my satisfaction. If Moulton can keep playing until he believes he did something wrong, then so can I.

Further, I will not revert war with any editor who will obey me. A comment to my talk page should suffice to establish that. -- WAS 4.250 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about anyone obeying me. My offering of several paths, where I will voluntarily cooperate, is not a demand at all. Do whatever you believe best for the wiki. If I say, "I will not revert war with ..." how is this a demand to obey anyone? I've stated my intentions, and they are intentions that might help the situation, might be harmless, or might hurt it, people seem to differ. What I'm seeing here is that nobody is willing to take responsibility, as far as I can see, except for a few who are already acting: Moulton, myself, Darklama. The rest of you seem to prefer to talk while avoiding any possible personal responsibility. That's fine, in a way. Everyone here is a volunteer. But that is far, far from what Wikiversity needs.


 * I was, at one time, reverting about every contribution back in from Moulton. I'm not doing that now, simply because the flood of block-evading edits, and the revert-warring over them, takes up whatever time I have, which is little right now. But, to repeat, anyone can do this. You guys all know how to read the edits. If you think they should be open to be read by everyone, please, bring them back in. If you think they are damaging the community, then act, yourself. If you are a custodian and you believe I'm damaging the wiki, and you are willing to take responsibility for your action in context, then act. If you are not a custodian and you believe that what I'm doing is disruptive, request custodian action or start a CR. But don't, please, just sit there and whine, at length, about me or about Moulton, and my alleged demands. You took longer, WAS, to write the above than it would be to handle several days of my Moulton reverts, if you are generically opposed to what I'm doing and decide to revert them all. If you feel you must look at each one -- given Moulton's history, you should! -- then, sure, it's more work. And, indeed, that's the point. If we don't want a block to be a rigid ban, we must be prepared, as a community, to do the work.


 * It's argued that I'm ignoring advice. No, I'm considering it and rejecting it. Participation here is highly warped, this is a custodian action page, and who watches this page but custodians (in theory) and people who like to support -- or meddle -- in custodial process? If it's needed, perhaps for a CR, I will broaden outreach, through the means available to me, but I don't see it as needed, simply from the fact that a few users who wave their hands uselessly are complaining. If the situation continues regarding Moulton's use of real names, without adequate response, it might become necessary. I have no crystal ball. --Abd 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You generously offer many paths - how can it be a demand when all you are doing is unilaterally removing an infinite number of other paths? And thank you for volunteering to be in charge of deciding what behavior constitutes being responsible. Alas, I must be a poor learner for no matter how many times you tell me what to think, I yet again find myself thinking what I have decided for me to think. For example, yet again you patiently explain how we may act responsibly and relieve you of the onerous responsible-man's burden of changing Moulton's contributions; even pointing out how easy it can be to simply delete everything without even reading any of it. It is easy to be responsible for the nothing then created and not responsible to do nothing and let others be free to say what they wish and for them to be responsible for their own words. -- WAS 4.250 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, Abd, as if I believe that if I change hundreds of resources on Wikiversity to change one template to another by bot is a perfectly acceptable practice for improving the wiki that I should not gain community consensus before sending the bot off is the right thing to do. "Do whatever you believe best for the wiki." That is entirely untrue. Tell me where policy explicitly allows for reversion of edits made by currently blocked instead of banned users. Your practice is chasing after Moulton's edits and reverting them one by one and then expecting an established user amongst us to waste their precious time filtering through your edits for potentially useful comments from Moulton and to restore them in the proper order. Such an expectation is unrealistic, harmful and generally disruptive to the Wikiversity community, taking time away that could have been spent on improving resources instead of chasing a ghost. TeleComNasSprVen 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That was wicked brilliant. I especially loved the South Park allusion to Respect Mah Authoritah. —Barsoom Tork 20:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, my friend. WAS 4.250 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To echo SBJ’s point above: What policy are you thus basing your reverts on, and how do they actively help the Wikiversity community? Only bans against a person would give you license to actively revert all edits and/or delete pages that person made, not against users who are just blocked. I don't see any other custodians having a problem with Moulton's edits as an IP address, so why should you? Do we honestly have to slap a template on your talkpage before you actually listen to us, even though you are perfectly aware of the situation right now being discussed on this very page? At this point, it could be considered harassment of another editor by stalking. If I have to filter through the page looking out for every bad revert that you've done, Abd, trying to restore Moulton's comments in the proper order and look back through the revisions of the page it takes precious time and valuable resources away from me and the rest of the community. Can you see why this is disruptive?

Abd is showing here all the classic symptoms of the delusion commonly known as Adminitis, namely that he does:
 * 1) Archive old deletion requests and threads on pages for custodian notices (which should be left to the sysops)
 * 2) Asking other sysops to take preemptive action against policy-violaters (which only sysops have the technical capability to do)
 * 3) Enforcing blocks by trying to undo or faux-"rollback" a blocked users edits (which should be left to the sysops)

TeleComNasSprVen 01:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else find this unhealthy practice taking away time that could have been spent improving a few resources? Abd continues on his malignant spree of underhanded reverts. Why isn't any action yet taken against Abd? I'll keep you posted, so stay tuned! TeleComNasSprVen 01:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a toxic practice that retards the progress of the community. —Moulton 01:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Worrying About Revert-Warring in Our WikiWoe
Revert-Warring in WikiDrama, like political give and take everywhere, follows an oft-observed model. The model presented here applies in general to all WikiDrama at any level of intensity, from a simple reversion to clamorous kerfuffle and brouhaha. It has 5 stages.

1. Mimetic Desire for One's Point of View<BR> One editorial clique establishes their Point of View as an editorial objective and other editors react with a countervailing drive for their complementary Point of View.

2. Mimetic Rivalry for More Prominence<BR> Now the editorial cliques begin competing for prominence. Whatever winning strategies emerge, the less experienced editors copy them. To survive in WikiCulture, an editor must become deft at gaming the labyrinthine rules of the system.

3. Skandalon<BR> Skandalon is a Greek word that means "taking the bait." It's the root of "slander" and "scandal." In the rivalry for editorial dominance, if one side can goad the other into committing a foul, the opposing editor can be neutralized or even eliminated from the game. Thus begins a Wiki-War, fought on the editorial battlefield, in which the goal is to demolish and disempower the other side. Skandalon is what makes it so hard not to take the bait, so hard just to walk away. It's so easy to bicker and goad. The give and take escalates.

4. Scapegoating and Alienation<BR> Eventually one editor crosses some arbitrary threshold of civility or scholarly ethics where another Administrative Custodian feels compelled to intervene. It's essentially random which side crosses first, but often it's the more disgruntled minority, which uses harsher language or more erratic methods to maintain parity. Whichever side goes over the arbitrary line becomes singled out, and the others who kept their trolling below threshold are sorely offended. They rudely chastise the miscreant, sending him or her to the Oblivion of Time Out.

5. Consensual, Irrevocable, and Sanctioned Banishment<BR> To appease the rabble, the ArbCom or some comparable higher authority determines the standards of civility, comity, or scholarly ethics, and visits banishment and page-blanking on the outcast. Then everyone issues a sigh of relief. This escalates the polarization to the next higher level of self-examination in online culture.

The 5-stage pattern repeats at all levels of WikiDrama and for all rivalries and editorial competitions. The most vicious attacks are reserved for people highest up in the power structure. IDCab, Jimbo Wales, ArbCom, and Wikipedia Review all follow this model. Well, actually, almost everyone follows it.

At every point in a battle of WikiWits, the dynamic is somewhere in the 5-stage model, which repeats endlessly.

The only sensible way to arrest the WikiDrama is to adopt the conscious goal of de-escalation and run the model backwards toward constructive dialogue. Giving up the desire to be dominant, avoiding the temptation of skandalon, avoiding Requests for Comments, Community Reviews, and Request for Custodial Action, avoiding authorized and sanctioned banishment.

A common type of outcast is a person who bears witness and speaks the truth to power.

WikiDrama, left to itself tends to escalate over time.

We need to think our way out of verbal vendettas by mindfully running the model backward, de-escalating editorial power struggles and moving toward open dialogue.

At every stage of the model, we need to be mindful of the dynamic we are caught up in, and consciously elect to run the model in reverse.

With this Systems Theoretic Model of the dynamic structure of argument, debate, and dialogue, we can discover the optimal strategy to drive the system in reverse toward better practices, more accurate articles, more comity, and a more democratic, collegial, congenial, and collaborative learning community.

It's pure science, pure reason, and pure common sense. These methods of thought all reach the same insightful solution to getting along.

It's time we learned it so that we can discontinue the mindless practice of Wiki-flogging ourselves to death. It's time we learned, reviewed, reflected, and meditated on the Mimetic Truth and Reconciliation Model.

Moulton 19:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you've only proved that that model works when there is someone with a plan to manipulate the members of a small consensus-driven community into reaching the intended result. We need to be mindful, but we also need to be understanding of people who have been pushed into corners. Pushing back is a natural response. --SB_Johnny talk 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno that peace-making works all that well in practice. After all, most traditional religions are founded on a concept of peace-making, and yet most people who engage in warfare are members of some putatively peaceable religion or another.  I'd like to understand why most of us can talk the talk, but so few of us can walk the walk.  —Caprice 19:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In a voluntary community, booting the warmongers is a perfectly valid and sensible option. If consistently applied, it's also non-violent (but it is in some sense violent if arbitrarily applied). Making it clear what's appropriate and what's not is key, and sticking to it is also key. My problem with Abd is that he's (intentionally or unintentionally) interfering with the process of deciding what's appropriate. My issue with you (Moulton) is that you're intentionally stirring up drama (for arguably valid academic reasons, but in a very unethical way). --SB_Johnny talk 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What happens in reality is that competing factions form and each faction tries to disempower the other faction. In other words, what really happens is the project turns into a variant of Mafia Wars.  If you want to make it clear what's appropriate, it might be more appropriate to set up a mutually agreeable social contract up front and then organize the community by accepting members who are authentic and committed scholars who voluntarily subscribe, on their personal and sacred honor, to the terms of the mutually agreed-upon social contract (which includes mutually agreeable conflict resolution processes and protocols).  Otherwise, you spend years and years discovering why a rules and sanctions regime is a utterly failed and hopelessly dysfunctional regulatory model.  —Caprice  20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting up a contract at the beginning isn't really an option now... the WMF didn't do it that way (they seem to prefer the sink, swim, or choose to become a shark approach). However, there's nothing written in stone saying a community can't self-organize if it has the benefit of good intentions and a resolve to do so. That is an experiment worth trying. --SB_Johnny talk 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What have we got to lose (other than our daffy dopamine lulz)? —Moulton 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking lately that a focus on what we have to gain is better than a focus on what we have to lose. --SB_Johnny talk 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What we have to gain is a collegial, congenial, and peaceable collaborative learning community with democratic self-governance. —Moulton 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad I'm not reverting Moulton edits to the RCA page (on the same argument whereby I'm not reverting edits to custodian Talk pages). Yes. That is what we have to gain. That, indeed, is my goal, and I have a lot of experience with organizations that had highly contentious members, that reached that goal. It doesn't happen by itself, normally, most people don't have the experience. But some do. Wikipedia tends to block them if they suggest changes.... Is there a better way? How will we find out? By continuing to do what didn't work? When communities are at loggerheads, anyone who suggests a middle path may easily find himself or herself attacked by both sides.... --Abd 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "You must be the change you want to see in the world." —Mohandas K. Gandhi
 * Again, he said it. --Abd 22:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Moulton IP revert warring expanded
Moulton, blocked, is IP revert warring, see Special:Contributions/68.163.111.162, on the following pages.
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unanswered Questions and Unfinished Threads
 * Page created by Moulton as IP, I blanked and added speedy tag. Moulton revert warred. I tried leaving the page but placing tag, no, tag was removed. Last action of mine: blanked again with deletion tag.


 * Wikiversity talk:Scholarly ethics
 * Colloquium
 * Dramaturgy Workshop, page created by WAS 4.250, who has edited since revert warring began, hasn't touched it since, in spite of invitation. (If any Moulton is accepted by a registered editor, I expect I will leave it alone.)
 * Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence (revert warring stopped?), I will review this edit if revert warring does not restart.
 * Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions (revert warring stopped?), I will review this edit if revert warring does not restart.
 * Education, Moulton started to revert war, but then proposed revised edit; I reviewed revised edit and accepted it.

Moulton has edited many other pages, not within the scope of automatic reversion that I defined for myself. Previously, he had revert warred on WV:RCA over any redaction or alteration of what he'd posted, as he had revert warred with users on their own talk pages, as reported previously here.

Today, Moulton also edited:
 * Request custodian action
 * User talk:SB Johnny
 * User talk:JWSchmidt

I request that IP used for revert warring be blocked, with block ranges being extended as necessary to prevent revert warring by IP. If Moulton does not revert war, but allows time for other editors to review his edits, and does not use real names of users without having obtained a consensus for that, I prefer that IP he is using not be blocked. IP range blocks should be short-term. My suggestion is to make constructive or reasonable editing (or "silly editing" that is harmless, this is, after all, Moulton) easier, and gradually make revert warring and bullying more difficult. --Abd 02:06, 11 March 2011
 * Read the banning policy again, Abd. TeleComNasSprVen 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the Wikipedia banning policy. Moulton is not banned. He's blocked, and is evading the block. Your point? --Abd 06:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullying? You're the one who has been stalking Moulton's edits, Abd, in clear violation of policy. TeleComNasSprVen 02:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is quickly becoming ridiculous. Abd has been consistently violating policies by using personal attacks against other users, often with unsubstantiated claims, such as those made recently against Moulton and Ottava, including calling Moulton a bully and calling Ottava "broken"; has wasted everyone's time in a counterproductive experiment in frustrating and stalking another Wikiversity user's edits, albeit as a proxy to a blocked account &mdash; time which could have been better spent developing Wikiversity resources &mdash; and is overall disruptive because he defies community consensus. This meets he meets criteria one, two and three for preeminent blocking, to get him to stop until he listens to reason. TeleComNasSprVen 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bully" might be considered a personal attack, except it's really calling a spade a spade. "Broken" wasn't an attack at all. "Another Wikiversity user"? A blocked user, TCNSV. Get a clue, please. --Abd 06:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A blocked Wikiversity user, nonetheless. Don't call a spade a spade. TeleComNasSprVen 06:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked users are not entitled to all the presumptions that unblocked users enjoy. Moulton was blocked for, indeed, bullying, that is, forcefully, through his personal action, insisting on his way, pushing his comments in people's faces, and without support in policy or the welfare of the wiki. Revert warring is coercive, that's why it's normally rejected. "Bullying" is a summary, brief. I wasn't the first to say that about him, just the first about whom you have complained. I see a lot of targeted complaint from you, TCNSV. What is your objective with Wikiversity, your goal here? --Abd 14:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * TCNSV, Barsoom Tork is still working on your clue. He indicated it should be ready for you sometime later today. —Montana Mouse 09:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Serious incivility and further personal attacks found here when he calls me an idiot. TeleComNasSprVen 06:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What TCNSV references is a revision, I immediately removed that whole section because I saw it as, intended or not, trolling for incivility. Looks like I was right. The revision TCNSV cites was at 05:50, and I removed the section, including my own edit, at 05:52. TCNSV is harassing, coming back here at 06:24 with his deceptively incomplete complaint (people may just look at the diff and not then look to see what happened, thus creating a deceptive impression), and this comment above is proof. Part of what is broken on WV is the enforcement of civility policy, I'd love to see it enforced, and lost my sysop bit, the first time, because I did enforce it. However, it is traditional to ignore self-removed incivility, even more than struck incivility. --Abd 14:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not striking the above, but I will tentatively offer an apology to TCNSV. He may have been tricked by Moulton's device of restoring the content I'd deleted from my Talk page, by creating a new page and substituting it back on to my Talk page. It looked like it was still there. This also misled Darklama, perhaps, who responded to me, and who apparently thought that my edit had been visible on my page for TCNSV to respond to. This is what Moulton often seeks: get people fighting with each other, I've seen him do it many times, frame what another has done in order to rile up someone allegedly insulted. Or at least to impeach a user. I'm not striking the above because it was negligent of TCNSV not to check the next revision for removal, and then to not notice (and mention, if he still wanted to bring it here) that it had not been me who restored it. To find the diff, he had to look at history, and in history, he'd have seen the removal of the section. So I'm still less than thrilled. -Abd 14:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud, Abd. Do you honestly believe that Darklama is that dim-witted?  Give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt.  —Barsoom Tork 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm merely responding to the overt appearance of what s/he wrote. "Dim-witted" is certainly not what I'd call Darklama. That was clever, Moulton. There you go again, trying to amplify dispute so that the actors will play the roles you have assigned them with more oomph. Darklama, were you aware that I had immediately reverted myself, almost certainly before TCNSV saw the edit? I trust you, and believe what you write about your own experience. --Abd 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that Darklama had specifically edited the Clue Train subpage (to tweak the heading levels)? —Barsoom Tork 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I noticed it. I asked Darklama to delete the page, right? Personally. Why DL rather than on RCA? Now, what does it mean that DL edited that page? It's not completely clear, it's easy to miss that it's a subpage, I've done it many times, and if it was noticed, were the implications realized. I.e., that my "uncivility" was open and immediately visible outside of history only because of your edit, Moulton. My guess is, no, but DL hasn't said it. --Abd 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, c'mon. He's only doing a 5th grade lunatic psychodrama so that Billy the Kid could play Chief of Police in the Game of Police State.  I'm mean it's only a silly Dostoevskian drama.  Let them have their sport.  I mean it's not like either of them are here to learn anything.  —Barsoom Tork 03:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is helpful?
This is really getting tiresome. Does anyone think Abd is being constructive here? Or at least not think he's being disrputive? --SB_Johnny talk 13:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful to Wikiversity, but let's hypothesize that it's somehow helpful to Abd, per his own (possibly hidden) personal agenda. Whenever someone is acting erratically (and they are not otherwise on drugs or suffering from an organic disease like rabies), I routinely ask a standard question: What are they trying to learn?  Last week, Abd told me how he learns.  My best hypothesis, Johnny, is that he's enacting his thinking because if he only articulates it, no one responds.  My best guess is that he wants someone to tell him what's wrong with his thinking, as he is enacting it.  It would help him to learn that, and the answer which is emerging is that if he enacted his thinking (as he has been doing), it would arguably bring disrepute to the project.  And I reckon he is beginning to understand that.  —Moulton 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Disreputive. Nice. That could mean I'm making Wikiversity look bad. Look how it's tolerating Moulton, and it's tolerating revert warring, and incivility. Shocking. Why does the WMF even tolerate the place?
 * SBJ, what, precisely, am I doing that you consider disruptive? I must add that sometimes necessary actions create "disruption." That is, people don't like them, waste time arguing for or against them, etc. If what I'm doing is contrary to policy, specify the policy and warn me. Don't waste everyone's time with hand-wringing on Request Custodian Action. Is this a request for action? What action?
 * I saw before how you desysopped and blocked User:JWSchmidt thus precipitating a years-long grudge. You got a small-scale consensus for it by private discussions among 'crats. In fact, the community did not support your block, and JWS was probably not resysopped because of his own intemperate reaction, but ... you are now allowing massive disruption on Wikiversity, and not cooperating with fixing it, instead trying to shoot the messenger. I'm here because I believe in the potential of Wikiversity, I see it as the capstone for the whole WMF family, not just a minor, inconsequential project. I came in when you left, precisely because I saw that, and I saw that the WV community would have to come of age. That means growing pains, it means that things will have to change. Please be a part of the new Wikiversity, that is effectively and efficiently and democratically self-governing. That can handle input from people like Moulton without coming unglued. Or, even, from people like me. --Abd 14:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd, please take your hands off the mouse for a minute and read this page. It looks to me like you are the one arguing with everyone else, and you are the one mass-reverting when nobody else seems to think that's a particularly good idea. I'm just asking if there's anyone who sees something I don't. --SB_Johnny talk 14:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check that out, SBJ. Reading this page, a page which I did try to keep simple, will, I'm sure you appreciate, take some time. Are you asking for custodial action? --Abd 15:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think SB_Johnny may be trying to learn if Custodian action action is needed, which is within the scope of this page. -- dark lama  15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly. That kind of learning, however, doesn't happen well on noticeboards, it's better in a general discussion forum (such as the Colloquium) or the Talk page of this page (possible, not so good), or -- what's the goal? To convince me to change my ways? Isn't my Talk page the place for that? And if that doesn't work, then a user CR? Does SBJ want a discussion of how to enforce blocks? Then, perhaps, WV:BLOCK? Wikiversity badly needs discipline, i.e., orderly process, not some vague ad-hoc "community" response that is utterly unreliable and probably unpredictable, that doesn't even consist of an identified set of people. (The WikiWay works for certain things, but can be lousy when there is conflict. Moulton knows this!) So, Darklama, if that's what SBJ is trying to "learn," this isn't a good place to do it. What I've been suggesting for this page is that people ask for custodians to do stuff. Yes, it can be to review a specific editor's behavior, in which case, generally, diffs would be appropriate. However, for this page to not simply repeat, as Wikiversity grows -- I expect and want it to grow! -- the ANI train wreck on Wikipedia, requests here should receive, promptly, custodian response, which may include "no action needed." Or "Thank you for pointing this out, I'll check it out and get back within a day. People with comments or questions may make them or ask them on my Talk page." A single custodian may openly decline to act. Responding here with no response to the basic issue is a declination, I suppose, since it may nowt be presumed that SBJ is aware of the situation, the revert warring by IP.
 * Consider me someone who has come to the Complaint department with a report of some company problem. Nobody answers. So the complainant makes a lot of noise. Surprised? What's the proper way for a Complaint department to treat this? Toss the noisemaker out? "Disturbed our sleep." Yeah, he did. What are you doing sleeping in the Complaint department? --Abd 17:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notices for custodians is the notice board. The goal may be to discover if there is anyone that does not think you need to change your ways. That is separate from trying to convince you to change your ways. I do not know what SB_Johnny believes the next step is, could be your talk page, could be CR, could be a block for ignoring consensus. -- dark lama  18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, you are correct, DL. However, in this case, by "Noticeboard" I mean a place where action is requested, of privileged users. Now, those who watch this page are a small subset of Wikiversity users. I know of many users who would think I was being over-tolerant of Moulton. They aren't watching this page. Should I invite them to look at this?


 * What is consensus on Wikiversity on blocking policy? Does "block" mean "You may edit by IP, no problem?" If so, why the hell do we have blocks? Moulton's point about authorship would be absolutely right-on. What I'm seeing here is a number of users who don't want a block enforced. Period. And they tolerate massive incivility, and even outing, and IP revert warring. But they won't take responsibility for what they want, which they could very easily do, they want to convince me to stop by nattering.


 * "Ignoring consensus" isn't established here, and a block for it would require certain conditions that are absent, unless it's desired to do the star chamber route again. Just how well did that work, by the way? As far as I can see, it just about demolished Wikiversity.


 * Demonstrate consensus, and you'll see me follow it. Or I'd leave, I suppose. Who is massively ignoring consensus here? Hint: he's blocked. but not really blocked. Just forced to use IP instead of one of his registered accounts. While others complain about someone who is simply enforcing a block, in a way that allows Moulton to still have a lot of say. He'd have even more say, in fact, if he'd stop revert warring. Where was the massive outcry when Mu301 set up a massive range block to enforce SBJ's block of Moulton? I do less, with more personal work, and I get more flak? And there is an idea that I'm "ignoring consensus"? Yes, Moulton is right, as he's often right. Lunatic psychodrama. --Abd 20:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What's needed, in my opinion, is a simulation workshop where people like Abd can enact their thinking in a laboratory simulation and see what happens. That's why I proposed a Dramaturgy Workshop, to accommodate people like Abd who require live processes rather than dry discussions.  —Moulton 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * absolutely not. I think it's about time he actually be forced to lay his hand off the undo button, read this page and abide by community consensus. Blocking policy: "Does the Wikiversity community consider an action or behavior disruptive?" Yes. "Does the person know their action or behavior is considered disruptive or does the Wikiversity community reasonably expect the person to know?" Yes. "Is the person likely to continue to be disruptive, if asked to stop and constructive alternatives suggested?" Yes, and he hasn't stopped, in spite of community consensus against him. TeleComNasSprVen 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You won't be able to force him to bend to your will (or anybody else's). This entire lunatic psychodrama arose because of the foolish belief that those those with the biggest Billy Club can coerce everyone else to bend to their will.  In a collegial and congenial collaborative democratic learning community, nobody is compelled to bend to anyone else's will.  In a dysfunctional Dostoevskian drama, the characters discover what happens when any one of them tries to bend any of the others to their will.  You just get lunatic psychodrama.  This is hardly a new observation.  Many observers have written about it, from Biblical times to modern times.  If you want Saturday morning cartoons, all you have to do is discard the concept of a collegial and congenial democratic collaborative learning community and supplant it by a culture in which one or another character, with or without a tin badge, tries to impose his or her will on the others.  You invariably get vexagonistic lunatic scapegoat psychodrama.  —Caprice 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Abd is blocked
I assume this won't be particularly controversial, since he seems unswayed by feedback and undisturbed by the negative effects of his approach. --SB_Johnny talk 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At best, it postpones the lunatic psychodrama for a month (assuming Abd doesn't just emigrate to another project in the interim).  —Moulton  21:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And the next breath you take will, at best, merely postpone your body's continual need for gas (o2/co2) exchange for a handful of minutes. Life gets along just fine with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_(business). WAS 4.250 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, instead of Truth and Reconciliation, we had Tooth and Wreck Obliteration. Welcome to Wikiversity, please set your clocks back 3760 years.  —Moulton 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1750_BC Interesting century. WAS 4.250 22:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See The Political History of Banning. —Moulton 01:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How about setting out a few unblock conditions for Abd? If he is unblocked, he is to: Failure to comply with any of these conditions would result in a reinstatement of a short block of no less than 24 hours. TeleComNasSprVen 01:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Refrain from further reverting Moulton's edits unless and until he gains community consensus for a ban on Moulton, and that if he wishes to further conduct any more reverts of Moulton he must first consult with another user to determine whether or not it is "outing", vandalism or the like.
 * 2) Acknowledge that he must listen to and abide by community consensus whether or not he accepts them or he rejects them, and that any well-respected member of the Wikiversity community has as much right a say in warning him as does a custodian, which is a standard on many other Wikimedia wikis like Wikipedia (this is in response to Abd's insisting that only a custodian could warn him).
 * See The Political History of Banning. —Moulton 01:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Annahoj
What's with the massive amounts of empty page creations? TeleComNasSprVen 07:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Annahoj might be planning to construct some kind of Rosetta Stone Matrix. Has anyone asked Annahoj what's going on?  —Barsoom Tork 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a request for custodial action, TCNSV? Looks fairly clear to me, he's working on an educational resource. He's doing it in a certain way, with piles of subpages. From what I've seen, it seems reasonably appropriate, though there might be a better way. How about asking him, instead of the whole custodial community? --Abd 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

❌. No custodian action likely. --Abd 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixing Spam Black-List
A custodian needs to remove the link to Wikademia from the spam black-list. WIKIADVERSITY 11:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikiversity:Community Review/User:Wikademia. But you already knew that, right? --mikeu talk 00:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

❌ --mikeu talk 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Imaback
See contribs & here. fr33kman t 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Users Learner101, Imaback, IM BACK V3, I'mBaCk V2, Speedy boii are all the same person (checkuser info). I would recommend a longer term block of IP address 74.142.175.97 than 2 hours. There are only vandalism edits from that IP address. Best, fr33kman 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --mikeu talk 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I didn't expect Learner101 and IM BACK V3 to be part of this, considering I haven't had the chance to see the creation of the separate accounts nor their individual edits. But I had been monitoring the other three accounts and had suspected that they were more or less obvious ducks, since they made substantial contributionss to the "Rap page" and had interestingly similar usernames. Based on the edits made by each of the three users, it's extremely likely that they were operating from the shared IP address belonging to a particular school, especially given Speedy boii's comment to the other users, in a childish pass-the-paper-along sort of manner. TeleComNasSprVen 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Socks
Please block the following socks: Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

✅ blocked and nuked. --SB_Johnny talk 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:TeleComNasSprVen damaging Requests for deletion
For some time, TCNSV has been reverting closures on The RfD page. He's especially done this with requests where he was the nominator. Many requests had been open for months, with no activity, it was plain that they were not going to be deleted.

Deletion policy has been unclear on closure process. However, Darklama and I found consensus on setting a time for a decision, a month, after which it would be better, if a page should be deleted, to archive it and renominate. Old RfDs simply stop attracting any attention, and if consensus to delete does not appear within a reasonable time, it's very unlikely to appear later. We had one discussion that had been open for a year.

TCNSV, today, reverted a series of closures. I've been closing one at a time, so that it's easy to revert one. TCNSV, however, reverted all of them with a single edit. Attempting to accomodate him, I changed four closures from Keep to No Consensus -- there had been no discussion, or little discussion, so he was right that there was no Keep consensus -- but he then "re-opened" them. -- by reverting. Not as new requests, which was the idea, but in place. New requests would go to the end of the page, and would reference old requests with a link. I reverted this, intending to work on possible accommodations, suggesting re-opening at the end, if needed, but these marginal deletions should not be treated as emergencies, whereas having a page full of old discussions is causing a continual problem.

Since TCNSV, on the Talk page, had pointed out that a page full of Keep decisions would suppress nominations (maybe!), I started archiving the closures, moving the older ones to the archive. In the middle of that, he again did a [ large revert], undoing many edits, most of which would not be controversial. He's not being careful, he's not working cooperatively, and it's causing me a lot of work to deal with the mess. From quite a number of incidents now, it seems he's got the idea that "Whatever Abd does is wrong. Revert."

As it happened, I had started to write a draft Community Review on TCNSV behavior, which has become quite erratic, and it documents the history of these closures and reverts. See User:Abd/Community Review/TeleComNasSprVen. I only began with a study of his work with page deletion (much of which has been fine.) There is a lot more.

I've warned him, and he's removed the warning, Please review and act to restore order. --Abd 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem here that can't be solved with a cool head and some appropriate actions. TCNSV obviously is applying policies and ideals to the RfD page here which do not exist on this wiki - that is wrong. However, the way in which you have gone about warning him is also unacceptable. In general, people respond better if you don't flat out threaten them, but rather leave a friendly message - especially established contributors such as that user. Perhaps if you went about talking to him in a manner that isn't blatantly condescending, he'll listen. I know that I wouldn't respond positively to a warning like that. Ajraddatz 02:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, Ajraddatz. Problem is, this is after a series of problems, that have received little attention. By all means, if you can, mediate. Are you aware that TCNSV threatened me before I issued that warning?, and just after the warning, but before I filed this RCA, was.


 * If you agree that TCNSV behavior is "wrong," how about discussing that with him? How about doing a better job than I? A new voice may be very helpful! (And, by all means, your advice is welcome on my Talk page, any time.)


 * I'm asking for a custodian to look at what's been going on, and I'm fully aware that my own behavior will come under scrutiny. I came here because the wiki is being damaged. Telling me I'm doing it wrong is not terribly helpful, whether you are correct or not, unless you are willing to help me do it better. This is here because of the effect on the RfD page, not because I'm personally offended. --Abd 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, telling someone what not to do leaves the path of what to do in a very obvious light. I see no need for myself to mediate - not because I am too lazy to, but because I am not active here. As I said above, I think that if he is approached in a positive manner as I outlined, he will respond better. Ajraddatz 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's possible, Ajraddatz. If you won't do it maybe someone will. How about a custodian? --Abd 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at what has been going on, and as Ajraddatz says this is a good place for a cool head. I do not feel either person is doing any damage to WV by the ongoing disagreement at the RfD page. Instead it might be good for both of the people involved to reflect on the fact that: continuously undoing the actions of another editor is a simply a waste of your own time (clearly the other party involved is happy to redo what ever you have had undone.)

I would like to offer the following advice to both people: Neither open nor close discussions, whether it is at RfD or any other official discussion. Just leave it to a custodian eventually take care of. This advice is offered by someone who has made the same mistake a number of times. Let me emphasize this is advice to both parties. No one has been warned of an official sanction/block/whatever, lets just try to let the matter drop and avoid ending up in the same place again. Thenub314 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thenub. The status quo, without my work at RfD, was that the page had become entirely too long, with one discussion having been open for over a year. So far, every close I have made has been confirmed by the community, with only a few remaining open after having been re-opened, and while an exception may eventually appear, nobody's perfect. I've taken a long time to bring this to RCA, which is a first stop in dispute resolution process -- the "action" may simply be that a custodian acts, warns, advises --; the next stop would be a user RfC, if there is no prior resolution. Yes, we need cool heads, but a block of ice that does nothing but be cool isn't what we need.
 * As to principles, any user should be able to close a discussion, see the draft policy, WV:Deletion policy, as edited last by Darklama. There is no sound reason to require a custodian to close decisions, and no evidence that custodians, per se, are better able to assess community consensus. The key is closes consistent with community consensus, and the skill required in closing within a reasonable period of time, from only a few comments, sometimes, is that of understanding and assessing that consensus. I'll claim that the record demonstrates that I have that skill. Any contrary evidence?
 * My quick summary of what has been happening is that TCNSV arrived here last year and began to take a "deletionist" position with respect to Wikiversity resources, without understanding the Wikiversity mission and why it is much more inclusive than his experience with the other wikis. Initially his requests were mostly for obviously inappropriate pages, he could have used a speedy deletion tag much more efficiently. (I suggested that usage to him, back last year, and he may have taken offense to it.) However, he also nominated pages that weren't appropriate for deletion. Nothing wrong with a few inappropriate requests, but the problem arose when he reverted, without discussion, closes of long-open discussions as keep or no consensus, when he was the nominator (generally), and when this became a habit, with frequent assertion that my closes were disruptive. --Abd 17:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your closes are actually against community consensus. See the information I've provided here followed by your revert on your user talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The cited diffs do not show what is claimed. The page in question is actually a family of pages, a shotgun nomination, and the RfD, when TCNSV reverted my close, was closed by User:MichaelBillington, with a very similar conclusion, and it's now archived at Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/10. (I added the archive template, only because Michael had not, and the only substantial difference between his close and mine is that he tagged the articles with a "slow deletion" notice -- my suggestion, originally! --; but he also granted permission to remove any of those notices if I thought the pages were useful., and made other comments that show he understood what I was doing and suggesting.)
 * You're using a strawman argument on a completely unrelated nomination, trying to draw attention away from the diff. I've pointed out several nominations that you've closed that were determined to be inappropriate by someone else (User:Bilby for instance) in that diff and therefore your closes have been against community consensus, but you blind your eyes to it. TeleComNasSprVen 19:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Several times, a user complained about my closes-while-involved, which were explicitly so, with special conditions stated allowing easy reversion, but those complaints were easily resolved, and the ultimate results were the same as what I'd found initially, in every case. Only one user has continually and repeatedly complained, TCNSV, and mostly about closes of RfDs he had nominated. If we except TCNSV, there is no current complaint. He has continued to complain about closes where I was not involved, and argues, against apparent consensus at this point, that RfDs should remain open indefinitely even if discussion has completely stopped. This is practice on none of the WMF wikis, and for very good reasons. The reasons are especially sound here. Renominations are generally allowed, so far, if there was a no-consensus close. So the problem is? --Abd 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is current: I've continued closing a number of discussions, most recent closes have been as No Consensus, a month or more having elapsed without a consensus appearing -- often there was no comment at all. Today, TCNSV reversed two closes where I was not involved, I had not previously commented, and closed both as No Consensus, the discussion being stale. Renomination is allowed, but this should be a new nomination, with new argument, and if there was prior argument, it can be linked, it should not be copied. (Because the original argument was given in a previous context, and it should not be implied that this older argument represents the current position of the editors involved.) Any close may be reversed upon the agreement of the closer, and there is a very recent example where Thenub314 added a comment immediately after close -- there was confusion because of TCNSV reversion -- and he asked me not to close, so I reversed the close.
 * I reverted TCNSV's edit, but will accommodate one part of it, see below.
 * TCNSV discusses through edit summaries, the summary for his reversal was: (reopen Category:No_calculations: the solution was to wait for Thewinster to comment specifically on the RfD thread at hand; renominate clinical practice with same reason and different timestamp) As to the first, with my close I requested specific help from Thewinster, because what is needed is an explanation of the category. Deleting all pages in the category would be a shotgun nomination and was an error, though Darklama's concern was certainly understandable. Many of those pages have interesting and useful content. If individual pages are blank or useless, they can and should be tagged for speedy deletion, we don't need RfD for ordinary clean-up. As to the "Clinical practice" nomination, new nominations should be at the bottom of the page, there are strong reasons for this, so simply reverting me and editing the timestamp is not appropriate. The original nomination should be archived. I will, however, copy his new nomination to the end of the page, after archiving the former nomination, to facilitate what TCNSV appears to want. Process is important, or else the page becomes, slowly or rapidly, a mess. --Abd 18:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Batch nominations of pages ready for deletion occur on a regular basis, and is completely allowed within the constraints of WV:RFD, which is what the page was built for. What gives you the right to determine which RfDs are inappropriate and not suitable for deletion and which ones are, as you commented here? Why would they be any more suitable for speedy deletion then, if the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a backlog of a few months? We don't know if pages are blank or useless, but we think they possibly might, yet not qualify for WV:SPEEDy so we bring them to RfD. Otherwise, speedy deletion serves no purpose. TeleComNasSprVen 19:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A batch nomination is what it is, yes, they are commonly done, and it is not contrary to RfD policy. It can, however, greatly complicate an RfD, and I've seen the same problem on Wikipedia, where a good page gets deleted because it was mixed with a pile of bad pages and assumed to be similar as to the arguments. No claim has been made that batch nomination, per se, is inappropriate, it depends on each case. Here, the situation was a non-existent category -- no category page -- nominated for deletion, when many of the pages had content that was potentially useful, or actually useful, apparently because the meaning of the category was unclear. The "speedy deletion" suggestion referred to pages within the category that had no content or that were clearly appropriate for speedy deletion. In other words, instead of a nominator asking the community to review many pages, comment on each page at RfD, etc., which would create a monster discussion, how about tagging the pages that had no useful content? And if help is needed, sure, RfD might *possibly* be a place to get that help, though not necessarily the best place, since one would not actually be nominating *specific* pages. The nomination in this case was clearly in good faith, the problem was only reverse of close. Another, better example, of problem nomination would be TCNSV's nomination of the entire contributions history of a user. What pages were inappropriate within that history should have been speedy tagged, at most, because the alleged problem was copyright violation. If a user was improperly removing speedy deletion tags -- I haven't checked this --, then it's a behavioral issue for RCA, not really RfD. In fact, process for copyright violation with images tends -- quite properly -- to be slow. There is no emergency, and we prefer to give users lots of time to fix problems instead of deleting images that might be in actual use. This was discussed in the RfD by custodians who actually work with this, and the user was responsive and began replacing images and speedy-deletion tagging old possibly inappropriate versions. Again, when this ancient RfD was closed, with the obvious conclusion -- we are not going to delete all the contributions of a user, and we don't need an RfD to delete copyright violations -- TCNSV reverted the close. It was later closed by Geoff Plourde, same conclusion as my close. --Abd 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The real issue here is RfD process and the reversion of closes without any realistic expectation of a change in result. Closes have been reverted based only on an ad-hominem argument that I shouldn't be closing, and this claim has been made regardless of whether I was involved or not. I was not involved in the two RfDs with closes just mentioned, those were neutral closes, and they allowed TCNSV to renominate, and I facilitated that. Yes, I've been closing a lot of discussions, but no example has been shown where my close, involved for not, was not confirmed by the community, as to result, or at least clearly allowed. On the contrary, and as an obvious corollary, TCNSV's reopenings of discussions, reverting my closes, has never been confirmed, with plenty of disconfirmations. See an analysis at Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion. There have been more since then, still no examples of error on my part. The result of my work has been a much cleaner and more active and functional RfD page, with many fewer stale discussions. This has taken a lot of work, and, were it true that the community does not want this work done, I could easily drop it, I gain nothing personal from this. TCNSV has not been shut out or excluded from the process, and he remains welcome to keep helping clean up Wikiversity. However, he's been making quite a bit more work than necessary, with his tendentious reversions of closes that he disagreed with. See his current discussion on my Talk page to see how much useless discussion is generated, when actually fixing a problem would be simple. --Abd 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You will notice that there has not been a single custodian action upon your request against me in any form. To claim that you have been free of error, when multiple users have reverted you, myself included, and that I am error-prone because I have as well been reverted but once by others except for you, is confirmation bias. TeleComNasSprVen 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Patience, TCNSV, don't jump to conclusions. --Abd 23:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I and others have raised notices here about utterly outrageous behavior, worse than anything you have done, TCNSV, and it's taken weeks, sometimes. I did not request a specific action, only review, and there has been a little, which is good. This merely begins a process. The history of my actions and your actions at Requests for deletion is quite clear. I've been acting consistently with consensus, you have not. You've mistaken a handful of examples of "multiple users" (two, other than yourself, as I recall) reverting an action of mine, for various reasons, as if it were a pattern of error. Only you have consistently reverted, and in every case your reversions have not stood, the action I'd taken, that you reverted, was eventually confirmed, and that was true of the two reversions by two others as well. One reversion is not a problem. Many, are, particularly when they just "prolong the agony" of old deletion discussions remaining open, when there is no discrimination, when you are claiming as policy, which you are enforcing with a revert, what does not exist and what is not supported by the community, i.e., that deletion discussions should remain open indefinitely, a long time if necessary, until "consensus is apparent," and, as well, when you revert multiple closes with a single edit, making it necessary to either revert you en masse, or tediously handle each case, and you've mangled the page in other ways when you did this. You are not being careful or cooperative. I've attempted to accommodate your requests, I made sure that the two pages you wanted to renominate were properly renominated, with new discussions with reference to the old, and even churned the tags on the nominated pages so that authors might notice the new nominations.


 * I'm going to ask you what your purpose at Wikiversity is, TCNSV, why you came here. I've seen what you said on IRC, what will you say here? --Abd 23:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

On speedy deletion
Speedy deletion is problematic; none of it is speedy, and can take months to process. It bypasses the consensus-making process when a page is tagged and there is no clear reason to decline a speedy. So if User:Abd starts going around and tagging everything for speedy deletion, he would be fully within his rights to do so until they are removed but once on each page and then sent to Rfd. If he suddenly tags multiple pages for speedy en masse, would that not be disruptive? First it would flood Special:RecentChanges and second it would call into question his ability to correctly speedy a page or bring it to RfD on the basis of a single tag and check WV:SPEEDY criteria before tagging the page. Theoretically he could tag any pages for speedy en masse and it would not matter, and once the pages are deleted it'd be too late to tell him that what he is doing is disruptive. TeleComNasSprVen 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TCNSV is here, as he has been with me, arguing against established practice, the proposed Deletion policy -- which reflects actual practice -- and the explicit instructions on Requests for deletion. He's free to do that, but not to, at the same time, claim that I'm disruptive for recommending, following, and implementing the practice and policy. --Abd 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion cannot flood anything except the speedy deletion category, and if a user were to improperly flood, as he's describing, custodians would notice it and object, as could any Recent Changes patroller. Speedy deletion is a device for avoiding unnecessary discussion, and it works. Only if the tag is removed is an RfD necessary, and the large majority of such tags are not removed. Some custodians have used removal of a speedy deletion tag by an IP editor as a reason to block the IP. I wouldn't do that unless the page were obvious vandalism. I strongly prefer to have anything other than truly obvious speedies require at least two editors: a "nominator" who places the tag, and a custodian who acts on it. As a custodian, I placed a number of such tags instead of just deleting myself. In some other cases, when I saw that there was a speedy deletion tag, but the author had not been notified, I went ahead and notified the author and deferred action on the tag. The process works, when it's understood and used. I've long invited TCNSV to understand how it works, and he's been quite resistant. His arguments above, given what is actually done, make no sense. Note that if, in fact, I tagged a pile of pages and they were deleted, that would mean that a custodian agreed with my proposed deletions, so how is it that the tagging would be "disruptive"? And if a custodian erred, anyone who thinks so could ask the custodian to reverse the action, and if there were no satisfaction, could go to RfD and request reversal.
 * In case it's not obvious, I greatly dislike deletion of anything remotely useful, and that dislike is reflected in Wikiversity practice and policy, it is the community's general position, at least a rough majority, as shown in many RfDs. Talking about me deleting piles of pages is really silly, given that. TCNSV's comment appears to be a response to my prior suggestion, last year, that TCNSV propose speedy deletions for obvious pages, instead of using RfD for them (and following the instructions on the RfD page). There is, indeed, a problem with that, but it's not the problem he describes. If I did huge piles of work nominating obvious pages for deletion, and Wikiversity has many of them, my work would be deleted and not recognizable, except by custodians who can see deleted contributions. Perhaps TCNSV has done great service proposing pages for speedy deletion, and I can't tell. We could -- and should -- fix that. It's not difficult. --Abd 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Old RfD, please review for closure
is currently the oldest RfD open, the nomination was June, 2010. I've been closing many old RfDs, but I prefer, this time, to solicit custodian review. Thanks. --Abd 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, User:SB Johnny, for closing the RfD and others, and I also thank all those who have recently helped clean up the RfD page by closing or reclosing discussions, this would be Geoff Plourde, MichaelBillington, Mu301, Poetlister, and TeleComNasSprVen. We still have a few controversial or recent deletion discussions, but the oldest, now, is only a little more than a month old. When this cleanup process started, the oldest discussion was about a year old. How about a hand for all those who help clean up Wikiversity with placing or reviewing speedy deletion tags and RfD discussions? --Abd 17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

IP recreation of deleted page, Isfoa
See Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/10. Page was recreated as adverse report on ISFOA,, then changed to promoting ISFOA.. I have placed a speedy deletion tag and will warn the editor who recreated the page, which is more serious than the other IP editor, presumably acting to protect the school's reputation, after the adverse report was re-posted. --Abd 02:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Thenub314 04:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not deleted yet, I've pinged Thenub314. --Abd 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. Thanks. --Abd 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)