Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Requests relating to Moulton

Notification of expectation of future trouble
User talk:SB Johnny WAS 4.250 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Brainstorming&diff=293242&oldid=293241 And it starts. I removed this trolling] WAS 4.250 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the score: WAS 4.250 and Moulton are using Wikiversity to continue their feud with certain Wikipedians by adding links to this project to pages maintained by Moulton that out particular Wikipedians. Moulton was indef banned from Wikipedia for doing this, now he's here. The pages that out Wikipedias are all found at the following domains where Moulton is a contributor: http://aggieblue.blogspot.com, "moultonlava" (link removed), http://blog.wikipediareview.com, http://www..wikipediareview.com. I'm simply trying to delete links that out Wikipedia editors Moulton, supported by WAS 4.250, have been feuding with. Moulton was kicked off Wikipedia, then locked out of his user talk page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton for outing a particular Wikipedia editor, and now he's doing it here. Administrators reading this should contact Cary Bass at the Foundation, he's aware of this situation and can fill you in. Centaur of attention 21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a feud with anyone. And these kinds of personal attacks used here to further a years long war over "badsites" is inappropriate. The badsites policy was defeated at wikipedia and is not a policy here. WAS 4.250 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All Foundation projects have as a fundamental policy not tolerating contributors who reveal the real names or employers of contributors against their wishes. Centaur of attention 21:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Foundation does indeed have a privacy policy. Adding a link to a learning resource at wikiversity is not in violation of that policy. WAS 4.250 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding links to pages that "out" Wikipedians is a violation of that policy. Centaur of attention 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly familiar with that policy, and don't see what it has to do with external links. Much to my chagrin just as much as to yours, we really don't have a lot of control over what people say and do on external websites. Your campaign of removing links only serves to make those links more pertinent... again (and again and again), please just let things progress, and let the Wikiversity community be the judge of what's appropriate. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if Centaur of attention is happy to advertise those cited URLs here, and blue link them in a high-profile complaint, then he hardly can complain when others similarly reference those same resources (perhaps with slightly different interpretative characterizations of what may be found in them). —Moulton 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Slow down and start from the beginning, please
All the first reports above dive into this issue at a "late-in-the-game" stage. Please slow down and start from the beginning. Firstly, please don't use jargon such as "to out a Wikipedian"; instead, say "to breach privacy policy by revealing true identity without consent". Secondly, please link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy every time you say "privacy policy" and tell us precisely which section applies here (I was reading it just now and it wasn't obvious to me). Thirdly, if you say someone was banned or if you make other allegations about breaches of policy on other projects, please provide more in the way of supporting links, so that we can reconstruct this. I've tried some of your links, but it's difficult for someone unfamiliar with this to see what's going on. Finally, if you say "contact Cary Bass at the Foundation", please say how! Sorry to be thick, but this is an out-of-the-way neck-of-the-woods here. --McCormack 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a battle over censoring facts related to the mis-management of the English language Wikipedia project and "outing" is a mere tactic to further the ends of that attempt to censor. Everyone, or almost everyone, at the Foundation level is in favor of proper ethical management of all Wikimedia projects, including the English language Wikipedia, so I have every reason to believe that whoever is behind this censorship attempt will fail in their attempts. And no, I really don't know who is behind this. except perhaps those who supported the failed badsites policy proposal at Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity is not a battleground, nor is it Valley Forge. Please concentrate on creating learning resources, and fight the battles elsewhere. --SB_Johnny | talk 04:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The WMF Privacy Policy has to do with disclosure to third parties of the IP addresses of those establishing TCP/IP sessions with WMF servers. Users who are not logged in automatically have their IP addresses disclosed, as in this relevant example. Matching such IP addresses to nicknames is often trivial, and occasionally an interesting puzzle that anyone can undertake to solve.

Now, for those who care to parse the meaning of the applicable WMF Privacy Policy, here is the relevant section:

Policy on release of data derived from page logs

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:


 * 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
 * 2. With permission of the affected user
 * 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
 * 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
 * 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
 * 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

As to whether Centaur of attention meets the definition of a vandal, I will leave that judgment to the responsible custodians here.

Moulton 12:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate and counterproductive conjectures about IP/account relationships removed: please leave that sort of thing to the Checkusers. Again, I'm rather familiar with the privacy policy, and you are correct: it doesn't mention linking to blogs etc. that "out" users. That doesn't mean you should do it, however, and it's frankly counterproductive to do so. We are not going to be hosting your battles, but we are more than happy to host your learning resource. Please try to separate the wheat from the chaff, and work on content, rather than strategy. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Put another way, think of this as a sanctuary, where the people don't really care where you or anyone else came from, why you or they are here, or what your or their history is, but where the people expect everyone to find way to get along and everyone is expected to leave any baggage from their life before the sanctuary behind or out of it, and where everyone gets a fresh start and another chance. So please let this go and concentrate on your work at Wikiversity, and not on what has lead you here. Like a sanctuary, if someone causes trouble because of their unwillingness to let go of the past, then the people of the sanctuary may have no choice but to ask the person to leave. Your fight is not with us, nor does your fight belong on Wikiversity. Fights are unproductive and Wikiversity is all about trying to be productive. At this time I believe no action will be taken, and continuing this discussion is just continuing something from a past that Wikiversity is not aware of nor in all probability cares to know about. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

External links policy?
I'm getting rather overwhelmed by my inbox lately, and I think we might want to have a discussion about external links before things get out of hand and/or taken out of our hands. Some of the email is quite disturbing.

Aside from spamming, there appear to be links that are objectionable in other ways. I think the best way to go about it would to have some sort of review process, so that if a link is felt to be objectionable, we can put a "temporary bar" on it, and bring it to some sort of discussion board comprised of the custodians.

When someone objects to a link, they bring it to the board. The person who added the link can give an explanation of why the link is important, educational, etc. The person objecting can say why it's objectionable. Then the custodians can weigh the arguments and come up with a consensus.

I don't think it's any problem having only custodians consensing... if someone's interested in taking part and are a trusted user, they can always grab themselves a mentor and join in. --SB_Johnny talk 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. WAS 4.250 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a good idea, and I'd like to help you, Johnny, in your workload. :-) However, why not keep this an open forum - and allow a custodian/bureaucrat to decipher consensus? Cormaggio talk 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it would be better to keep the conversations quiet ("ignore the men and women behind those curtains!"), because some of the links being discussed may attract a different kind of attention than we'd ideally like to have. See commons:Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll, which grew out of commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SB Johnny (checkuser)/Bureaucrats discussion, which in turn grew out of commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SB Johnny (checkuser). My RfCheck on commons ended up being mostly about what I do on Wikiversity, and several of those parties are busily scrutinizing us to this day. For that reason, I'd prefer to limit it to only established wikiversitans with maintenance experience on the main discussion page, leaving the talk page open for anyone else who wants to comment. The nice thing is that pretty much any "established user" on wv ends up becoming a custodian, or could become one within minutes if they wanted to (and let's keep it that way, please). I also think that we wouldn't need any deciphering with a custodian discussion: there were just as many people in awe of our community as there were people scoffing at it on that RfCheck, and they have good reason to feel that way. We are, needless to say, awesome :-). --SB_Johnny talk 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This process seems reasonable to me. I suggest erring on the side of caution... remove links brought for consideration in good faith until a determination is made. It's a wiki and there is no deadline so if in the end it is decided they can remain, they can at that time be restored. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lar. WAS 4.250 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a statement about linking to sources of personal information at Privacy policy. --JWSchmidt 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Publishing email addresses without consent
Please see and some of the history of that page. There has been a bit of an edit war. The anon doesn't have the most civil edit summaries but I am not sure I agree with Moulton that publishing email addresses of those he corresponds with is appropriate. I brought this up in IRC on #wikiversity-en and was advised to bring this here. To be explicit, while I make a spambot blocked version of my email known, I do not give permission for its republishing in non encoded form. I know some of the emails there are of people who do not publish their emails at all. It was said in IRC that perhaps each person needs to turn up here and ask that their addy not be published. I think rather than explicit permission should be required instead. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I couldn't find a place why Moulton finds it is important to publish the emails: Moulton: wouldn't only names or only initials or as it is now: no name and email also be sufficient ? If not, the more info you can provide about the why the better people can understand the actions.
 * I couldn't find on direct search with the given email two mentioned users/persons - so here also this should be considered to not list them (when I modified the email - e.g. leave out the @ - the result is not the same).
 * Since Moulton has the email adresses he can ask them if they want it published, so the users can make an edit to show this (that would probably be less effort than playing the revert-game and answering here :-) ). If you do not want to send them an email, I could do this for you. What do you say ? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 04:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The names and e-mail addresses of the recipients are not particularly important. They can be redacted without loss of value to the posting.  I'll let others decide how the recipients should be identified (if at all).  Probably their on-wiki avatar names could be substituted, if it's important to identify who received it.   —Moulton 05:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense should have led you to err on the side of redacting them in the first place. Why didn't you do that? They are now in the edit history for all to see. I suggest that the entire sequence be oversighted. Further, I suggest serious consideration be given to clarifying local policy to note that publishing email addresses without permission from the email address owner be considered a privacy violation, absent some special, case specific, justification otherwise. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lar. WAS 4.250 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did redact them on meta, as soon as I read your comments about the issue.  —Moulton 14:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to Lar: they're not in the WV edit histories now (I did an "admin oversight")... I don't have tools on meta though. --SB_Johnny talk 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done likewise on Meta. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Just for the record, the removal of those diffs here was with Moulton's expressed consent, so this request can be condidered closed by full consensus. --SB_Johnny talk 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While Lar's comparable oversight on Meta was undertaken without first seeking consent, it's clear that he understood from my disclosure above that he did not need to do so. However, for reasons not entirely clear to me, he does not quite consider the issue closed.  —Moulton 06:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The proximate cause of the request has been removed, yes. But I'm asking for policy clarification. Or a pointer to where existing policy makes a statement about this. So, not closed yet, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It could perhaps fall within Privacy policy, which is proposed. Emesee 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Lar is not fully satisfied, I propose some kind of open forum hearing, discussion, or case study so that we can all come to a common understanding of both the concerns and the appropriate remedies in the event of a breach of policy (or similar future breach of etiquette in the absence of an express policy). —Moulton 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Or on the other hand someone could ask for clarification on what the WMF privacy policy is, or just read it. You can be more private if you want, but not less. Email addresses, posted without permission, are private. Moulton violated privacy and now wants to make a big drama out of investigating all the ramifications, instead of just saying he goofed and he's sorry. Seems like rather a waste of time and effort to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The WMF Privacy Policy says this about E-mail:

E-mail

You may provide your e-mail address in your Preferences and enable other logged-in users to send email to you through the wiki. Your address will not be revealed to them unless you respond, or possibly if the email bounces. The email address may be used by the Wikimedia Foundation to communicate with users on a wider scale.
 * As I read that, it's mute on the issue of ordinary users publishing E-Mail addresses that users have revealed. As far as I'm concerned, it was between me and Alison, as she was the only one who said that her E-Mail address was not for public consumption.
 * Moulton 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I say the following as a legitimate curiosity. I would be interested to know if Moulton has that same view of the situation. Emesee 00:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the same view as Lar, because I don't go to the same church as Lar. Lar believes in the binary dichotomy of the Hammurabist school of thought, distinguishing right from wrong via an anachronistic Heaviside Switch Function.  I adopt the functionalist view that there is a continuum, with a continuously differentiable error function possessing a gradient.  In theological terms, the notion of a gradient maps into the concept of grace.  To my mind, Lar's notion is graceless, which is why it falls short of my concept of best ethical practices for recovering from a lamentable misadventure.  Neither of us accepts the other's concept of a functional regulatory model.  —Moulton 02:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm not going to theorize as to why we all see matters differently at this moment, I will say that I hope we can all be civil, respectful, polite, and considerate in our conversations and interactions here, and move forward in collaboratively furthering each of our own bases of knowledge here at Wikiversity in a constructive manner. Emesee 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The view that I am advancing is based on modern analytical systems thinking. It's a tad mathematical, but not all that hard to grasp, even for those who are not particularly fond of mathematics.  —Moulton 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lar, I cannot find anything one the wikimedia foundation policy page which has anything to do with this specific topic of publishing email addresses. If anything, it indicates that you use your email at your own risk. I would like to see you explain how Moulton violated privacy policies.
 * However, since people don't like to be spammed, we usually don't publish email addresses on wikiversity. Moulton should have used some common sense in these matters, and could have been more careful from the beginning.  I would say this is more a matter of civillity than privacy. Hillgentleman|Talk 04:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said to Lar in e-mail, common sense is often in short supply in Wikiland. Had the IP poster from the City of Brotherly Love said why he was removing the content, I would have concurred with him on the point that Lar and Alison eventually raised to my attention.  But he employed some choice epithets rather than provide a valid objection to including the full e-mail addresses.  I note that on Foundation-l, they partially redact them to confound the scrapers. —Moulton 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are drifting away again. Moulton realized hopefully now it is better not to publish the emails (also to use time for better things than revert-games) and now it is about a better policy or not.
 * /me sees always that people from larger projects want a policy here and there. :-( Let's discuss this at Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy. I will announce that page proposal also in the Colloquium. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are personal attacks unsupported by any evidence allowed?
Are personal attacks unsupported by any evidence allowed? The claim that "The founders of this project have serious behavioral issues at Wikipedia, one is banned, the other has a long history as a malcontent and enabler of troublemakers, and they skipped from project to project to found this project." at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Feedback_1&diff=307644&oldid=303481 and User:Centaur of attention is untrue. I have a long history of positive useful contributions at Wikipedia. Being unjustly attacked at two WikiMedia projects does not constitute skipping from project to project. ("If being arrested was evidence of having committed a crime, we would not need trials.") The unjust attacks are used as evidence of bad behavior. This is another example of the kind of unethical behavior that the Ethics project seeks to highlight and this person's actions appear to try to hide. WAS 4.250 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I truly believe at this point Wikimedia community needs awareness to what exactly constitutes a personal attack. I even have evidence to offer where some "good standing Wikipedians" will classify almost anything as a personal attack. It happened to me when I tried to make a defense to the sudden avalanche of attacks against me at Wikipedia orchestrated by an infamous Wikipedian; here is the example, to be weighed in all highly recommended fairness of what constitutes personal attacks, of attempted redactions orchestrated by such infamous Wikipedian for reason of her own long time hyperbolic revenge over the argument she made that I was "confused" and a "troll" for even having a family tree that shows *I might* be a decedent of the d'Arc family (for which she continued to exploit, or try to "out" me, in every way possible until I was completely "gone"). With SB_Johnny's RfCU on Commons, you can see why she got upset that the orchestrated block on Wikipedia had it limits where it didn't automatically set a status quo for the rest of Wikimedia. That kind of "expectations" in the status quo on other Wikimedia projects is something really interesting to consider because you here the argument that a project at Wikiversity should not have any affect over Wikipedia, but this "status quo," which would mean Wikipedia has authoritarian role over Wikiversity, should? Hmmmm. I offered several times to fax or show my family tree, but given that such proof would immediately prove accusations of me being a "troll" as a complete lie (no matter how true of what is stated in the document about my family -- the truth is it exists). That offer was never taken, but I remain accused and so do others. I seriously doubt such "status quo" should be upheld by witch-hunt vengeance. What ever happens about the "outing" accusations that Centaur of Attention makes on his or her user page, please consider the "outing" link I provided early, which shows exactly what "outing" means -- to get someone's reputation ruined and/or to disassociate them from a community. (note: I rather focus on how to improve the software to help in this ethical measures -- but I'm requesting fairness for fairness, not eye for eye, before such "status quo" becomes evil.) Dzonatas 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The page in question is the user page of a recent registrant which has been the subject of some controversy as to the most appropriate way to handle it. Since I take exception to the unfounded and unsupported claims on the referenced user page, I am requesting that custodial admins recommend a suitable conflict resolution method, consistent with established policies.  My own preference is for something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Process, if that is at all possible.  —Moulton 23:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a feedback page, so I think we need to allow a bit of leeway. Perhaps a narrative explaining how the project found its way to WV would be in order? One idea would be to add a field to the template to link to where efforts have been made to answer criticisms in the project space (not talk pages, but content that fills a gap or fixes a problem). --SB_Johnny talk 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a very brief synopsis of the genesis of the ethics learning project, that directly traces the route by which the project found its way from Moulton's Talk Page on English Wikipedia to Wikiversity, by way of Meta-Wiki. It's short enough that I'll just reproduce it here.

Genesis of this Project

In the wake of Majorly's uncongeniality on Meta-Wiki, WAS 4.250 initiated this learning project on Wikiversity.

See also:
 * User_talk:Lar#Perplexed.
 * Meta:Babel#Locking of Moulton's talk page
 * User_talk:WAS_4.250#Harrumph.
 * User_talk:Moulton/MetaArchive

The issues that WAS and I were discussing on Meta-Wiki trace back to an earlier dialogue on the English Wikipedia.

Moulton 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the participants of this project need to commit to civil, honest, reflective and respectful contributions. I'm disturbed by some of the comments and editing patterns I've observed over the last month or so. Cormaggio talk 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ditto WAS 4.250 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy/procedure learning project
I hope the well-respected custodians can lead by example in joining this project. This is an experimental project with a view to repeating it for all policies and procedures. Please see here, here, here, here and here for details. I have noticed, through my own dealings with custodians, that you are reasonable people and that you want the very best for this community. This is an experimental method for reviewing the functionability of policies and procedures and I believe it cannot progress without your participation. If you feel it won't work, let's try anyway. Let's learn by doing. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could summarise in more detail here the goals and the proposed methods - I haven't been to the links you suggest yet, but they look like they go to user talk pages, so some gathering of your ideas into a different place e.g., in the Wikiversity: namespace or here perhaps might be a way to collate and gather comment. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My ideas are here. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Salmon_of_Doubt and User:Moulton
Is there anything that can be done to prevent Moulton from endlessly adding personal attacks to my talk page? Salmon of Doubt 13:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) And that he cease impersonating other contributors. Salmon of Doubt 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose we enter into a mutually agreeable Social Contract, setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement? Would that be agreeable to you? —Moulton 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You will cease your personal attacks and impersonation of other users immediately. Salmon of Doubt 13:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you not summon me there? —Moulton 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You will cease your personal attacks and impersonation of other users immediately. Salmon of Doubt 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your evidence and reasoning to support your most curious and remarkable allegations? —Moulton 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now he is removing my comments from my talk page -. Salmon of Doubt 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh? I don't see what's missing. Can you identify the specific comment that allegedly vanished into the mist?  —Moulton 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Be more careful with your blind reverting. Additionally, you are not "Gastrin Bombesin‎," a registered Wikiversity account - if you are, please log into that account and confirm such. Salmon of Doubt 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the evidence to support your various claims. With regard to my alternate avatar names here, please see this disclosure on my talk page. —Moulton 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed my 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC) comment in your blind reverting. Salmon of Doubt 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have I since corrected my error? —Moulton 14:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is part of a drama enacted, unwittingly perhaps, by Salmon_of_Doubt and Moulton, playing themselves and cast to type, entitled Conflict resolution via punishment vs. tit-for tat. Take your bows gentlemen for that learning resource. I think you have both demonstrated the poor qualities of both strategies for the purpose of conflict resolution. WAS 4.250 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The drama may or may not be unwitting on the part of other thespians engaged in the liminal social drama. Given the role that Salmon of Doubt has cast for himself, he is entitled to play out the sketch to its ultimate conclusion.  Whether that conclusion will be enlightenment is not for me to predict.  After all, midwifing the epiphany was hard, even for Socrates, Beckett, and Galileo.  And they were dealing with extremely bright antagonists by the standards of their day.  —Moulton 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Salmon of Doubt: I'm asking Moulton to take a break from his effort to educate you (please see User talk:Moulton). However, please remember what it says on your user page, "This editor will respond to all questions about the ethical caliber of their contributions on their talk page". If Moulton asks you a question in a way that you think is rude and insensitive, I hope you can find a way to redact the incivil part, remind Moulton to be civil and then answer the question. I think we can all find ways to edit together, but a scholarly investigation sometimes involves asking pointed questions. A challenging question is not really a personal attack, it can be an opportunity to learn....if you do not ignore it. --JWSchmidt 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the restriction (1,2) "official" for a week... neither user may edit the other's user talk or case study. Cooling off and getting to work is a good thing. --SB_Johnny talk 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And I am frankly disappointed, dispirited, and chagrined that you have fired up the reprehensible machinery of Hammurabi and Machiavelli, which we both know to be abhorrent to our respective religious convictions, as well as strongly contra-indicated by well-documented scholarly studies. —Moulton 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing minor privileges granted you for free on a website not owned by you and not owned by the public for purposes consistent with the goals of the organization that owns those resources is entirely ethical. WAS 4.250 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance

Perhaps there is none more esteemed among modern English-speaking Ethicists than the late John Rawls. He is especially known for his notion of the Veil of Ignorance in the Philosophy of Ethics.

The Veil of Ignorance corresponds to the notion that any Universal Principle of Ethics must be the same for all players. If one were to trade places with any other player, the same Ethical Principle must still apply. Note that Einstein used the same reasoning when he worked out the Theory of Relativity. Einstein reasoned that the Laws of Nature must be the same for all observers. If two observers trade places, they should not swap out their proposed Laws of Nature for a new set keyed, to a different vantage point. Hillel expressed the same idea in the Golden Rule. His version said, "That which is abhorrent to yourself, do not visit upon your fellow Wikipedian. That is the whole of the Ethical Law. All the rest is talk-page commentary." This precept is known as "Indifference to Role Reversal" and applies equally to Einstein's thinking, Hillel's thinking, and the Twentieth Century thinking of John Rawls. Another name for this precept is The Symmetry Principle. If there is an asymmetry present, there is something lopsided in the applicable ethics. In the presence of an asymmetry or imbalance, there will arise a restoring force that will manifest as drama (or karma) to those embedded within an unfair system.
 * Moulton 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The practice of ethics does not require we abandon the notion of ownership. Do I have all the same rights as you with regard to living in your condo? Can I come over and use your condo any way I please? No. I can not. The resources at Wikiversity are set up to promote the Foundation's mission and restrictions on your rights here that are needed to effect that mission are ethical. WAS 4.250 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that you that extend that to the end of September, if you would. Thanks. WAS 4.250 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that you re-examine the ethics of descending the a rung on Kohlberg Ladder and retreating on the Gilligan Axis in the unhappy direction of antipathy rather than advancing toward empathy. —Moulton 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that you re-examine the ethics of tit-for-tat as a conflict resolution method dressed up as a drama caused by someone else. WAS 4.250 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would request that you resign from the Ethics Project. I am not interested in partnering with a hypocrite who does not believe in or practice the Fundamentals of Ethics.  —Moulton 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence and logic do you have to support your charge of "hypocrite"? WAS 4.250 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have embraced and adopted practices anathema to a belief in the foundation principles of ethics. You have embraced and adopted reactionary and retrograde levels on the Kohlberg Ladder, and you have adopted a stance of antipathy that I find utterly devasting in the founding partner on the Ethics Project.  —Moulton 05:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WAS_4.250 and JWSchmidt have made some excellent points - I'd encourage Moulton and Salmon_of_Doubt to take heed of them, and attempt to turn this conflict into a genuine, self-reflexive learning experience. The blame game is not working. Cormaggio talk 11:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Preamble: The English Wikipedia ArbCom is about ready to reveal their decision in the FM-SV-C68 case...

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Here is today's Colloquium Exercise...

Moulton 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Those questions are answered at Talk:Wikimedia Ethics. WAS 4.250 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Attack pages
The following two pages are nothing more than attack pages set up under the pretense of analysis. They were created and are being maintained by Moulton and Privatemusings, using the admins they blame for running them off Wikipedia as subject for "case studies" of "admin abuse." They are using these pages to create the impression that certain admins (JayJG, FeloniousMonk) are the troublemakers and spread that as a meme. In other words, they are slandering JayJG, FeloniousMonk to settle old scores. This is an abuse of Wikiversity and needs to stop. I've deleted the content at these pages and they should be protected from being restored or recreated.

Centaur of attention 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics
 * Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/1


 * I think Moulton's rhetoric needs to be toned down quite a bit, but it seems to me that Privatemusings has made every effort to be fair in presenting his experience as a case study. I don't see how Privatemusings could be interpreted as attacking anyone. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you and Privatemusings go way back at WikipediaReview? There's no reason why Privatemusings can't make his point without mentioning names and using a hypothetical example rather than using the one admin he resents the most. His reasoning for selecting and focusing on JayJG is apparent to anyone who know their history and that Privatemusings has long held a grudge against JayJG. Centaur of attention 20:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Centaur of attention, "There's no reason why Privatemusings can't make his point without mentioning names and using a hypothetical example " -  The exercise is called a case study because it is for studying cases.  In the very beginning, the participants of the learning project claimed that there existed many problems in wikipedia without providing much evidence.  I was one of them who asked for the examination of a few simple concrete cases to illustrate what they were talking about.  It is only unfortunate that the participants are not interested in beginning with simple cases of old and are more interested in the present cases.   Hypothetical cases are good in themselves, and indeed there are such exercises, but they do not serve the same purposes;  and limiting ourselves to use hypothetical case to study the phenomena is not serious scholarship. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't say I "go way back" with anyone at Wikipedia Review, as I've never been particularly active there, but what would that have to do with anything anyway? Nevertheless, I don't see where Privatmusings mentioned names, anyway.  The only mention of Jayjg that I found was in Moulton's case study. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: User talk:Centaur of attention, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The corrupt practices delineated in those case studies need to be examined by many more impartial observers. So far, JWSchmidt and Ottava Rima have constructed their own independent studies, which may be compared to the ones I crafted.  Each of us is prepared to answer questions on the cases we prepared.  If anyone thinks an element of the case is unsubstantiated, they are welcome to request a presentation of evidence and reasoning to support any such element.  —Moulton 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason this attack page, full of names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand? KillerChihuahua 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a good long look at Deletion requests. In particular you may want to look at the case of Albanian sea port history there and the edits surrounding it.  Having looked at that, you tell me how you think you're going to get that page deleted when this page was kept (and especially considering the manner in which it was gotten kept).  The Jade Knight 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh for crying out loud. Thanks, JK, that explains so much better than any discussion could. I'll just leave the asylum to the inmates, then - btw, you seem sane, good luck with the attempts to inject reality here. KillerChihuahua 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua, you mentioned "hurtful and distressing falsehood" in a way to constitute an attack page. With that reasoning, I can claim that Wikipedia is an attack site against me for the messages it left on my page and in log files. I never deserved that treatment. Your view may vary, but I think we have to consider where a lot of this mess started. Ethical studies is obviously not a topic that would exist on Wikipedia, as it would contain original research. Somehow, the "original research" is being mis-transposed to carelessly as "an attack-site." You either have the option to participate or not. Given your comment about "asylum," I'm sure you just categorized many more people here than you know with that certain hurtful and distressing falsehood. Dzonatas 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua: a scholarly exploration of editing at Wikipedia is an "attack"? Please explain. "names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood" <-- if there is something on that page that you do not agree with, feel free to join the research project and provide your perspective. Someone might get the idea that your charges, offered here without any supporting evidence, is an attack....or an attempted cover-up. "there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand" <-- not quite proper grammar, but true. --JWSchmidt 13:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess KillerChihuahua is another (or just the latest instantiation of the same one?) Wikipedia scholar who comes here to make charges and then, when challenged to provide evidence to support those charges, just says "I want a pony". New learning project: Wikiversity participants who think JWSchmidt is a troll and feel that calling him a troll improves the learning environment of Wikiversity (Wikiversity participants who think JWSchmidt is a troll and feel that calling him a troll improves the learning environment of Wikiversity/And we are tired of people who make personal attacks!). --JWSchmidt 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would join that group. :D But on other things, perhaps we need a three month time out where everyone on both sides participates in my close reading project of simple passages from literature with responses/answering questions. Ottava Rima 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you happen to particularly enjoy listening to the music of Warren Zevon, by chance? Or how about Adam Faith? The Jade Knight 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua
Any particular reason this attack page, full of names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand? KillerChihuahua 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please identify specific passages in that page which you claim to be inaccurate, and either provide evidence and analysis to refute the passage in question, or ask for the author to defend the passage with evidence and reasoning. Is the sole issue the question of whether or not the 14 allied editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design who certified the RfC against me constitute a "Cabal"? —Moulton 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note
A small note to those who believe that there are "attack pages" by Moulton et al. - I created this originally as a way to try and show how they could craft an argument without actually attacking individuals or dragging up people unfairly. It focuses on the ethical concepts without blaming or criticizing. My way of crafting it has come under attack by Salmon of Doubt for being biased, and I made a note at the top to admit that I see the term "Creationist" or "Intelligent Design" as a black mark and something I would not like to be a part of. However, my intention was not to create the perfect page to talk about the issue, but to show Moulton and JWSchmidt a way to moderate their approach to emphasis discussion and minimize possible offense. All are welcome to participate, or to recommend how to recraft certain aspects. Ottava Rima 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Which I did see, and thought precisely what you have stated: this is how to address issues without attacking individuals. KillerChihuahua 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you take issue with any of the analysis or commentary in Ottava Rima's investigation? —Moulton 18:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Moulton, thats a little rude. Killer Chihuahua, instead, let me welcome you to participate on that page. It should be known that it was crafted from Moulton's perspective in mind (as it is a guide for his argument). You are also welcome to create a similar page that analysis the situation differently, and we could form a cross talk between the two, weighing the pros and cons of each view, the individual perspectives, etc. I think it would be healthy for Moulton to participate in a discussion as such in which he is partially removed (at least emotionally) and is put into a role of talking about the concepts and not the individuals. Ottava Rima 14:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been seeking to engage my detractors for a year now in a functional conflict resolution process, in lieu of the sham charades they've long been perpetrating at en:WP.  —Moulton 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)