|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! |
|
|
Rootology |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined:
Member No.: 877
|
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...=User%3AMoultonhttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity..._for_incivilityQUOTE Block of Moulton for incivility
After discussion with other admins, in which I was requested to personally make this block, I have indef blocked Moulton from this project. It is my belief that he was not here in a good faith effort to create learning materials, but rather was here to carry out his ongoing campaign against people who he thinks treated him unfairly at Wikipedia. After reviewing his case at Wikipedia, I think this is clearly not the case: he was properly blocked at Wikipedia, and should be blocked on sight from any Wikimedia project where he surfaces with a similar agenda.
I would recommend that a significant number of the attack pages be deleted, and the project protected at least for now, pending a good community discussion of what something like this should look like.
There are always difficult growing pains for young commuities; I have seen it in many languages and many projects. I encourage Wikiversity to review the "ethics" project - which, it seems to me could be an interesting project if handled appropriately - with an eye towards developing principles for dealing with such projects in the future. One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals. I would also like to encourage you to consider clarifying the scope of Wikiversity to make it more clear that it is not a place for people to come and build attack pages in the guise of learning materials.
In any event, I hope that my action here will be viewed as helpful. I did not act quickly, but only after discussion with important people, and only after hearing that 3 bureaucrats support this action. It is not my intention to be the "God King" of Wikiversity, although I do request that this block only be overturned upon a very careful consideration of the possible implications for the future of the project.
The first major internal conflict and ban is always tough. My thoughts are with you, and I wish you well.--Jimbo Wales 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
dtobias |
|
Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined:
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 14th September 2008, 3:41pm) Constitutional Monarch,[/i] Jimbo? Do they banish people?
I remember as a kid on my first trip outside the United States, to Canada, I actually had some concerns after seeing that the coins of that country featured a Queen, given that my past experience with queens was dominated by Alice in Wonderland's Queen of Hearts, who was prone to yelling "Off with your head!"... I really thought that when visiting a country with a queen, you were in constant risk of having her see you in the street, decide she doesn't like you, and have you executed. ---------------- Now playing: Melissa Etheridge - I Want To Come Overvia FoxyTunes
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 14th September 2008, 3:59pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 14th September 2008, 7:41pm) I wrote about the "Moulton" aspects of this situation on the other thread. But the Jimbo aspects are quite another thing: he's not a Godking, but he's going to be one just this once? And although he's not a GodKing, Moulton is effectively "banished from the realm"?
Constitutional Monarch, Jimbo? Do they banish people?
This is rather a radical turn of events, in any case...
We do not know who the "three bureaucrats" were. We do not know who he was talking to. As many people have said, they saw this coming. Jimbo has the ability to move between projects based on his special status, so he was a likely person to turn to. There are only five bureaucrats on Wikiversity. Of the "three bureaucrats" involved, SB Johnny and Cormaggio are almost certainly two, as they support the ban later in the discussion. The other might be either Mu301 or Erkan Yilmaz. Sebmol has been inactive since May 2008. Except for SB Johnny, I don't recognize any of these names.
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
This is better than Harold Pinter. QUOTE My theory of the source of our differences is that it's the basic science vs politics dichotomy, which also manifests as the observation vs control dichotomy (in feedback control theory), as the functions vs rules dichotomy (as in systems theory), and as the candor vs hypocrisy dichotomy (as in theology). In other words, if I say, "Be ye not deceived," and you respond, "How can we get to the ground truth?", I answer "By means of the protocols of the scientific method and the tools of epistemology." If you ask, "How may we resolve a conflict?", I respond "By applying the techniques of Action Research and Conflict Resolution, as proposed by subject-matter experts in those fields." But I cannot compel my antagonist to become a scholar if his preference is to be a thespian. But if his preference is to be a thespian, then I propose to apply the analytical tools of Drama Theory to study the resulting lunatic social drama. —Moulton 06:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is someone going to do something to stop this from continuing, or should one expect to be subject to repeated and unending personal attacks at this project? Salmon of Doubt 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to enter into a mutually agreeable Social Contract, setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement? —Moulton 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Salmon of Doubt 13:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Salmon, if you don't respond to him, than he will probably leave you alone. You could spend your time in a different way here on Wikiversity.--Daanschr 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I will return to my policy of ignoring everything he writes. Salmon of Doubt 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This post has been edited by Peter Damian:
|
|
|
|
Giggy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 755
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,552
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 15th September 2008, 10:47am) This is got to be an embarrassment for WMF.Jimbo Wales' sole contribution to Wikiversity since its inception: Despite my not usually being a fan of Jimbo's using his monarch powers to ban people, I must say his contributions to Wikiversity have been more valuable than yours. QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 15th September 2008, 3:42pm) They should unblock Moulton, tell Jimbo to butt out of their community affairs, and then make their own decision about how to handle Moulton. Jimbo apparently wasn't even aware of the circumstances, as indicated by Ottava's comments, and was probably just pursuing somebody else's grudge against Moulton.
The correct thing to do, even if they told Jimbo to butt out, would still be to block Moulton for pretty much the reasons given by Jimbo.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 15th September 2008, 6:55am) The correct thing to do, even if they told Jimbo to butt out, would still be to block Moulton for pretty much the reasons given by Jimbo. QUOTE(Hammurabi of Babylonia) 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. The above is the very first written law in the history of human civilization, written by Hammurabi of Babylonia, some 3750 years ago. It is now up to Jimbo Wales to come to Wikiversity and submit his evidence, reasoning, and analysis to the Assembled Community for scientific, journalistic, and judicial peer review, in accordance with Wikiversity Policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |