Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Status of Moulton

Note: this Wikiversity community discussion was censored.

Setting an exemplary precedent on the use of real names
SBJ, why did you choose to name this page "Status of Barry Kort" rather than "Status of User:Moulton"?

Did I grant you license to use my real name in lieu of my Wikimedia Unified Login Name (that being the name that most people in the Wikisphere would recognize).

It occurs to me that if the issue of using real names is so important and so sacrosanct, why would you set the opposite example here?

Are you not aware that most people naively imitate the practice of those most prominent in a culture? Many will see your example of using real names, assume that is normative practice, and adopt it without giving it a second thought.

Let me point out that long before the issue of using real names came up, FeloniousMonk, and Dave Souza linked my Wikimedia Login Name to my real name, thereby violating the very practice they were simultaneously expressing alarm about. Similarly, you long ago began to use my real name in your postings here without bothering to ask if I minded and (more importantly) without bothering to reckon what kind of example that sets for others in terms of acceptable normative practices in that regard.

Moulton 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - page is renamed, and redirects have been deleted. --mikeu talk 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike, notice the difference in the way Dave Souza and SBJ are treated when they engage in the same practice that they condemn me for. You come in, oversight their erratic postings, and resume normal operations without so much as note of distress.  But in my case, the pitch-fork wielding hordes are noisily calling for blood.  This is the kind of asymmetrical governance practice that reveals WikiCulture to be lacking in fair play for all.  Insiders get a pass on their conduct, outsiders get burnt at the stake.  Don't you think it's time to upgrade WikiCulture to 21st Century Ethical Best Practices?  —Barsoom Tork 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been using that as your signature, Barry, so it seemed appropriate. The people you were naming were not doing that. --SB_Johnny talk 14:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I began doing that after Cary, Jimbo, the goons of IDCab, and their sychophantic lieutenants swept into Wikiversity to unceremoniously disrupt the Course on Applied Ethics. Rather than blow the whistle on those who, long ago, violated the very rule they were simultaneously waving in my face, I mooted their violation by acknowledging their controversial research to dig up my real name.  But the point remains, Johnny, that many here have blithely engaged in the same controversial practice that they would use as a pretext for burning me at the stake.  What I mind, more than others using my real name, is the double standard, wherein it's fine if official does it, but it's justification for Kristalnacht if I do it.  —Moulton 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was under the impression that you wanted to "stand and be counted", so I used the name you've been signing with most often of late. --SB_Johnny talk 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough? I don't think so. This seems to be a misrepresentation to me, if not an outright fiction. I'm going digging in histories - but right now I can say that Moulton has used his real name, many, many times, and so far as I know none of these people he has been, and continues, to address by what he believes to be their real names has ever done so:Myself, FeloniousMonk, Guettarda. There are almost certainly more. So this is a double standard of the worst sort, which Moulton is pretending is quid pro quo. KillerChihuahua 16:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote: "Barry Kort 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)" from Status of user:Moulton in the context of a project of mine and I don't see a single instance in that page where he uses anything other than the quoted name.  It is perfectly reasonable to refer to someone by the text that they use as a sig.  --mikeu talk 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is what I found, which shows clearly he has been publicly using both names together since 1993 at least: Now, he can request he be called Moulton here, no doubt. But to claim he's being "outed" is nonsense, and is, I am sorry to say, an outright lie. KillerChihuahua 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * page titled "Moulton's Home Page", which begins "Barry Kort (Moulton) ... Barry Kort is a founding Director of..." The Internet Archive shows it has had that since at least 1999 (it didn't go back further)
 * Mudconnect article, date unknown: "1992 or early 1993...the infamous Dr. Barry Kort, "Moulton,""
 * 1993 interview
 * Jul 12, 1999 - signs multiple posts with "Barry Kort (moulton) "
 * 2003 microMUSE
 * knol page uses Moulton and Barry Kort
 * Barry (Moulton) Kort


 * Do any of those pages associate the "Moulton" of those off-wiki pages to User:Moulton of Wikipedia? How does KC establish that association?
 * "Moulton" is a very common surname in New England, as it's the name of a family of early settlers. How do you know that the "Moulton" on MicroMuse from 1993 is the same person as User:Moulton on Wikipedia?  Did you scour the Internet looking for concordances?  If that is a normative practice that's perfectly fine for you to do, then it's a normative practice for anyone here to do.  As I recall, that's how Daniel Brandt found pages you had posted, associating your rather distinctive avatar name to your real life identity.  That's also what FeloniousMonk did, when he compiled a dossier on User:Moulton in his WP user space to use at RfAr.  And that was the first time anyone on WP published a concordance linking the User:Moulton on WP to any other instance of Moulton on the Web.  Note that WP has a page listing dozens of uses of the name.  Who did the research to pick out which person corresponded to User:Moulton on WP?  And if that research is a normative and acceptable practice for FM or you to employ with total impunity, then it's a normative practice for anyone to employ with equal impunity.  —Barsoom Tork 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps now you better appreciate how normative practices all of a sudden become capital offenses when an adversarial editor does it. I don't much care what normative practices are agreed upon in a community's culture, but the lunatic drama of defining a common practice as a hanging offense only when someone else does it is utterly ludicrous.  —Moulton 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Moulton, until you stated an objection, I was also under the impression that you did not mind the use of your name. Please state your preference, if you have one, so the community is clear on how they should refer to you.  For example, I prefer mikeu, mike, or Mu301.  I also prefer that my last name not be used, and I insist that it be spelled correctly if it is used (against my wishes.)  --mikeu talk 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My preference is for symmetrical and reciprocal practices, full stop. —Moulton 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is your prerogative to change your mind about how you would prefer to be called and I'm sure than people will respect your wishes. But you must make clear how we should address you.  Signing edits with multiple names   causes confusion, and you have only yourself to blame if others are uncertain about what name to use.  I ask again, if you have a preference for a name to be used (or not used) you need to clarify that.  Just ask if you'd like to see the name removed from the quote above and/or if you'd like others to refrain from using it in the future.  But knock off the crap arguments.  You have no right to expect that any reasonable person would know that they should refrain from using a name that you choose to use as a sig on wiki. --mikeu talk 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between one's time-varying preferences and what others are keen enough to remember and disciplined enough to honor. The confusion over what to call me arose when Jimbo decided to obliterate the name "Moulton" from the pages of Wikiversity.  Now there is nothing especially sacred about the name itself.  It's just the name of the street where I was working in 1990.  I had logged into a new kind of social networking site from my office at BBN on 10 Moulton Street, and the site prompted me to choose a handle.  I stared out the window at the intersection of Moulton Street and Concord Avenue for a minute or two, decided I didn't want to be known as "Concord Avenue" and typed in Moulton.  So that became the avatar name that most people became familiar with.  But since I am an educator, I also use half a dozen other character voices, just as many educators have done since Aesop first gave voice to educational characters in animal costumes.  The only right I expect, Mike, is to be treated the same way officials are treated when they engage in the same commonplace practices as me.  —Moulton 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently, the practice is to use the person's real name if he has previously used it, or currently uses it, and it is therefore made public by the contributor. The practice is to not use a contributors real name in other cases. You already have symmetrical and reciprocal practices, which you are ignoring and behaving unethically about. KillerChihuahua 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time FM and Dave Souza used my real name on WP, I had not used it myself, on-wiki. The first time SBJ called me by my real name on my talk page here on Wikiversity, I had not used it here myself.  —Moulton 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly the whole story. I asked if I could address you by your name, and you said yes. Remember? --SB_Johnny talk 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you remind me of the conversation you are recalling? Was that on the telephone, or here on Wiki?  I wonder if you are remembering how we addressed each other during private phone calls.  —Moulton 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was definitely on the wiki, after the phone calls. Probably on your talk page, but it was a while ago and my memory is not encyclopedic. I clearly remember asking you though, since it felt off to call you "Moulton" after we'd been chatting via phone, irc, email, etc. :-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was on-wiki on my talk page, then we should be able to find it. Even though Jimbo, Mike and others have baleeted my talk pages, there remain backup copies to look at.  Do you remember the approximate time frame?  Or better yet, just restore them all.  —Moulton 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't do that without consensus, sorry. It was right after we talked on the phone, iirc. Or you could just trust me on that and save the trouble :-).
 * And Barry, please chill. I started the review because you and John have been demanding it (right?), and almost everyone else and their dogs have been giving me crap for even talking to you. You should know by now where I stand, eh? --SB_Johnny talk 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I found it. That collegial exchange dates back to July 26-27 of last year, long before all the unruly brouhaha got started. As to being chilled, if I were any more laid back, I'd be in a coma.  It takes a lot more than this to get me riled.  I see this as a "teachable moment" if you recall that meme.  I reckon you stand in the path of lot of crap being thrown in your general direction.  It occurs to me that flinging fecal matter is not the kind of demeanor one would expect of scholars in an authentic learning community.  —Moulton 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it stinks. Pun intended :-). --SB_Johnny talk 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from review page

 * Note how Killerchihuahua refers to Moulton by his real first name, whilst damning him for treating her in the identical manner. —Barsoom Tork 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC
 * Since you have made it public knowledge that Barry Kort is Moulton, having it on your own home page its not the same, let alone "identical". Note how Moulton evades blocks to make attacks and snide comments and continues to "out" editors in his single-minded pursuit of attacking those he perceives as having "wronged" him. Please also note that at the time I wrote the above, this page was at /Status of Barry Kort and has since been moved so I was using the terminology of the page itself. To use another name would have introduced needless confusion. This does not prevent Moulton from painting it as an "outing" however, pretending it is equal to his repeated attempts to harm others in their r/l jobs and lives. KillerChihuahua 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you similarly published pages linking your real name and various horticultural interests to your highly distinctive avatar name on Wikipedia and elsewhere. How do you think it became known? Similarly, FeloniousMonk signed his real name on messages to the Foundation mailing list, and simultaneously maintained several professional pages associating his real name with his Wikipedia roles. This whole thing about real names is a disingenous pretext, especially since FM and Dave Souza had both published concordances linking User:Moulton to outside pages (just as you have done here). You see, the practice of associating avatar names with real names is quite common. What is bizarre is excusing it with a mere shrug when an official does it, but making it a hanging offense when an adversarial editor does it. —Moulton 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Moulton keeps posting a lie about me claiming I posted certain information on Wikipedia. I did not. He is also including "clues" to help people stalk me. I would appreciate it if his harassment of me were prevented or removed, thanks. KillerChihuahua 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did I claim you posted information on Wikipedia? Just as you easily found off-wiki pages about "Moulton" dating back to 1993, one can easily find off-wiki pages about "KillerChihuahua" dating back to 2003.  But whereas you posted a list of such pages, I have not done so here.  But by your example, I would be within my rights to do, if you are within your rights to post a concordance of off-wiki pages of mine. —Moulton 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Abolishing the Wikipedia Bans As a Governance Tool
 ''The following article originally appeared as an add-on comment in the P2P Foundation's blog. Michael Bauwens, the editor of the site, elevated the comment to a main article in its own right.''  The governance model of Wikipedia was so anachronistic that it took me over a year to place it in the timeline of historic governance models adopted at various times in the annals of human history.

The thing that stymied me was the prominence of blocking and banning as the primary tool of governance. I simply couldn’t place that among the recognized tools of governance in any historic context.

And then I happened to take a look at the oldest surviving account of secular law — the Code of Hammurabi of 1760 BC.

Of the 282 laws that Hammurabi of Mesopotamia carved into the stone tablets, take note of the very first one:  1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.  Evidently, banning (ostracism) was a common practice in the tribal cultures in the Middle East some 4000 years ago, at the dawn of civilization. Capricious and spurious banning was evidently such a common and egregious abuse of tribal overlords that Hammurabi made it a capital offense to ban someone without proving just cause.

And yet, on Wikipedia, indefinite blocks and bans without due process are a common occurrence. That is to say, the prevailing governance model of Wikipedia corresponds to a pre-Hammurabic tribal ochlocracy that is so anachronistic, it predates the advent of the Rule of Law.

When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders drafted the US Constitution, one of the provisions they put in Article One was a prohibition against Bills of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder is the technical term in the law for declaring a person to be an outlaw (without respect to having violated any specific law that applies equally to everyone). The Founders excluded Bills of Attainder from the tools of governance because 4000 years of political history had demonstrated that such a toxic practice is corrosive and ridden with corruption, and invariably sinks any government that comes to rely on it.

The irony here is that Wikipedia purports to be the “sum of all knowledge” with an educational mission that reaches out to students, teachers, and scholars around the world. And yet those exercising power in Wikipedia have not yet learned the oldest and most profound lessons in the annals of human history — lessons enshrined in the first written law and in the first article of the US Constitution.

The consequence of adopting such an anachronistic governance model is that Wikipedians are fated to relive and reify the long-forgotten lessons of history. They relive those lessons by reprising the same kind of political dramas that fill the history books since the dawn of civilization.

The anachronistic governance model which Jimbo Wales foolishly and mindlessly introjected into Wikipedia is simply not a sustainable model in this day and age. Summary and capricious banning wasn’t even a sustainable model some 3768 years ago when Hammurabi first singled it out as an unacceptable practice in a civilized culture.

So what to do about it? The answer can be found in the second law of Hammurabi’s Code. As Hammurabi advises, the solution is to tell them to go jump in the lake.

Or as they say in Yiddish, “Nem zich a vaneh!“  ''Further comments by readers of the P2P Foundation may be found here. Additional comments by participants of Wikipedia Review may be found here.'' 

complaints
Re: "There is majority support for filing an abuse complaint, but it is technically not possible for the community to do this. Abuse complaints must be made by an indivual through the OTRS system." Does anyone know of a link that explains how complaints are filed through OTRS? --mikeu talk 15:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you viewed OTRS? DarkObsidian @en.Meta-Wiki 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kangaroo Court
The following response to a post in the Discussion section by SB_Johnny lacks the attached response. [Source]

Discussion
This isn't a court, it's a discussion of options to be taken by a community that's rapidly shrinking and seriously needs to move on. It is completely inappropriate for you to accuse the people participating in this discussion of acting in bad faith.

You've already made it clear that you don't like the process. Point taken, so please respect people's right share their views, and to have their views taken seriously. --SB_Johnny talk 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a sham Parliamentary Bill of Attainder, Johnny. And you should be ashamed of yourself for convening such an outrage to 21st Century education. —Montana Mouse 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)