Wikiversity Block Party, Silencing the voice of dissent around the world Options

[Moulton]

Here is the current draft of a section of the proposed Wkiversity Blocking Policy ...

Discontinuation of disruption

Often blocks will occur for a specified amount of time ranging from hours to years. In some cases an indefinite block will be applied. Blocks for IP addresses must be done with care because often the disruptive editor is not the only person that will be affected.

Anyone may request that an unblock be made at any time. You may request an unblock on the effected user's talk page, the blocking Custodian's user talk page, at Wikiversity:Request custodian action, or at Wikiversity:Community Review. You should calmly and politely explain why disruption is no longer a concern. Unblocking may require that editors obey special provisions to ensure they discontinue their disruptive behavior. The blocking Custodian can participate in any discussion to unblock an editor, but any decision to deny the request must be made by other custodians.

The Wikiversity community can decide to unconditionally unblock an editor or to deny an unblock request. Custodians cannot block editors again for 30 days when the Wikiversity community has unconditionally unblocked an editor. Custodians must not unblock editors when the Wikiversity community has requested a block or denied an unblock request, unless the Wikiversity community reverses its decision.

As a result of a specific block against a single named account, several Wikiversity Custodians (including Mike Umbricht, Mike.lifeguard, and Adam Brookes) have, over a period lasting almost two years, extended that block to range blocks that currently include 70,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, 8192 IPs at the MIT Media Lab, a Class C subnet at the Utah State University School of Journalism, and the entire IPv6 network of 2^128 addresses, worldwide, which connect to MWF servers via gateways operated by the SixXS Consortium.

Let's look at the consequences of those associated range blocks. We begin with a review of this relevant passage from the governing WMF Policy ...

The public and collaborative nature of the projects

All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.

Does the proposed Wikiversity Blocking Policy, cited above, contravene applicable WMF Policy? May a local project abrogate the WMF commitment under its 501c3 charter without jeopardizing the 501c3 tax-free status of the WMF as characterized by the WMF Mission Statement and via associated filings with the IRS?

In order to obtain 501c3 non-profit status, WMF was obliged to make certain representations to the IRS, to the donors, and to the public. There are corresponding published guidelines such as the one cited above.

In the case of a breach in compliance with those representations, would the WMF would be justified in discontinuing a project that had departed from WMF Policies and Practices that exist to ensure compliance with the WMF Charter and Mission and with the promises the WMF made to the IRS, to the donors, and to the public?

That could well be the opinion of the IRS, and thus the opinion of the WMF Board. Do the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse wish to risk it?

Now, I personally have no objection to rogue sysops testing that possibility by knowingly departing from WMF policy and pledges associated with its 501c3 status. I would be a useful scientific experiment to test the competing hypotheses.

It occurs to me that, to the extent that a local project thumbs their nose at the WMF commitment, it either jeopardizes the 501c3 status of the WMF or (more likely) it jeopardizes the willingness of the WMF to allow an individual project to depart from the published mission and commitments to the IRS.

Are the Custodians of Wikiversity aware that IPv6 users around the world (mostly in Asia and India) are denied access because all IPv6 access to WMF servers funnels through the gateways operated by the SixXS Consortium?

Since the Enlgish Wikiversity blocks those gateways, it thereby blocks the entire IPv6 network.

There are many people in Third World countries who do not use named accounts because if they did, their governments would persecute them. So they edit as IPs to protect themselves from oppressive regimes.

If these dissidents were to use a named account, then the government only has to find but one IP match to identify someone who is critical of the regime. And then that one IP match connects the aurhor to all other writings from that named login.

Give it some thought. If you were in Iran, or North Korea, or China, would you want Adam Brookes helping those governments silence a voice of dissent?

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Moulton]

The Mission Statement of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is echoed on the WMF's annual filing with the IRS (Form 990) states:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

And yet, per the direction of Jimbo Wales (as understood and executed by Custodians of Wikiversity), the following content was summarily deleted from Wikiversity:

* 13:57, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Archive" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:55, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Archive 8.9.14" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:54, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Ethic Models & Resource Links" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:53, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Meta-Wiki" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:53, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/MetaArchive" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:51, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/dnull1" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:50, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Mu" ‎ (Beyond scope)
* 13:49, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/NewYorkBrad's Principles" ‎ (Beyond scope)

How can links to scholarly resources on ethics be "beyond the scope" of study at Wikiversity?

How can NewYorkBrad's Principles of Due Process (from a recently concluded ArbCom case) be "beyond the scope" of study at Wikiversity?

And how can those deletions be squared with the WMF Mission (as committed to the IRS via Form 990) to "keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity"?

Are NewYorkBrad's Principles of Due Process really not useful as material worth studying at Wikiversity?

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Jon Awbrey]

Duh!

[Adambro]

Now here is a radical suggestion, if you actually do care about many others potentially being deprived of the ability to edit Wikiversity due to those blocks which are in place because you are unable to respect the block of User:Moulton; stop evading the block. That you continue to evade the block shows you don't really care, you just want to continue using Wikiversity as your own test laboratory to carry out your misguided social experiments.

[Moulton]

Now here is a radical suggestion, if you actually do care about many others potentially being deprived of the ability to edit Wikiversity due to those blocks which are in place because you are unable to respect the block of User:Moulton; stop evading the block. That you continue to evade the block shows you don't really care, you just want to continue using Wikiversity as your own test laboratory to carry out your misguided social experiments.

Fair question, Adam. Here is a classical answer...

As you know, Adam, I am entirely powerless and voiceless on the English Wikiversity and on the associated IRC discussion channel. (Perhaps you can explain why.)

I do not respect the fundamental concept of blocking and banning as you (and other Custodians) have inexplicably introduced it into Wikiversity.

The reason I evade your foolish and ill-considered practices, Adam, is to enable you (and others like you) to understand why governance models, beginning with the very first secular laws ever carved onto stone tablets, right up through modern interpretations have eschewed the practice which you are so fond of employing.

James, for the record, I've never asked to be unblocked. There are several reasons for this, some of which are subtle and not at all obvious to those who have not had long conversations with me. Here on WV, perhaps three or four people who know me reasonably well could faithfully articulate my reasons. I don't oppose a discussion about unblocking, and I am more than happy to participate in it, but not because I am seeking to be unblocked. To this day my objectives remain as I posted them on my user page three years ago — namely to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. I can do that whether I am unblocked or not. Indeed some of my objectives are best served by creatively engaging in civil disobedience when I am subject to an out-of-process block or comparable Bill of Attainder. To my mind, these are worthwhile and timely learning projects that, happenstantially, tend to be most commonly introduced via liminal social drama (rather than via dull classroom lecture materials). JWS, PM, SBJ, Greg, and I have somewhat overlapping ideas on these issues, given that we've all been subject to Monarchial Bill of Attainder (out-of-process blocks by Jimbo Wales) and comparable shenanigans and machinations when Jimbo threatened to shut down Wikiversity if the Custodians did not do his bidding. He got away with it two years ago. Last March it backfired on him, and now the time has come for Truth and Reconciliation. Moulton 02:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I previously explained to User:Juandev...

Los Obliviados y Los Olvidados

Why are you going around your block here Moulton?--Juandev 08:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you and other custodial agents of WMF arrogantly violating the First Law of Hammurabi here? Is it your express purpose to teach 21st Century youth to blithely dispense with four thousand years of education on substantive topics such as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Scholarly Ethics, etc? Are these fundamental educational concepts beyond the scope and remit of Wikiversity and other WMF-sponsored projects? Is that what donors are funding in the name of a 501(‍c)(3)tax-exempt educational enterprise? —Barry Kort 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[lilburne]

about many others potentially being deprived of the ability to edit Wikiversity due to those blocks which are in place

And if he manages to get them to block your IP?

[Moulton]

...about many others potentially being deprived of the ability to edit Wikiversity due to those blocks which are in place...

And if he manages to get them to block your IP?

Like Ottava before him, Adam can blithely unblock himself, thereby demonstrating his contempt for the notion of recusal.

[GlassBeadGame]

Now here is a radical suggestion, if you actually do care about many others potentially being deprived of the ability to edit Wikiversity due to those blocks which are in place because you are unable to respect the block of User:Moulton; stop evading the block. That you continue to evade the block shows you don't really care, you just want to continue using Wikiversity as your own test laboratory to carry out your misguided social experiments.

Fair question, Adam. Here is a classical answer...

As you know, Adam, I am entirely powerless and voiceless on the English Wikiversity and on the associated IRC discussion channel. (Perhaps you can explain why.)

I do not respect the fundamental concept of blocking and banning as you (and other Custodians) have inexplicably introduced it into Wikiversity.

The reason I evade your foolish and ill-considered practices, Adam, is to enable you (and others like you) to understand why governance models, beginning with the very first secular laws ever carved onto stone tablets, right up through modern interpretations have eschewed the practice which you are so fond of employing.

James, for the record, I've never asked to be unblocked. There are several reasons for this, some of which are subtle and not at all obvious to those who have not had long conversations with me. Here on WV, perhaps three or four people who know me reasonably well could faithfully articulate my reasons. I don't oppose a discussion about unblocking, and I am more than happy to participate in it, but not because I am seeking to be unblocked. To this day my objectives remain as I posted them on my user page three years ago — namely to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. I can do that whether I am unblocked or not. Indeed some of my objectives are best served by creatively engaging in civil disobedience when I am subject to an out-of-process block or comparable Bill of Attainder. To my mind, these are worthwhile and timely learning projects that, happenstantially, tend to be most commonly introduced via liminal social drama (rather than via dull classroom lecture materials). JWS, PM, SBJ, Greg, and I have somewhat overlapping ideas on these issues, given that we've all been subject to Monarchial Bill of Attainder (out-of-process blocks by Jimbo Wales) and comparable shenanigans and machinations when Jimbo threatened to shut down Wikiversity if the Custodians did not do his bidding. He got away with it two years ago. Last March it backfired on him, and now the time has come for Truth and Reconciliation. Moulton 02:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I previously explained to User:Juandev...

Los Obliviados y Los Olvidados

Why are you going around your block here Moulton?--Juandev 08:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you and other custodial agents of WMF arrogantly violating the First Law of Hammurabi here? Is it your express purpose to teach 21st Century youth to blithely dispense with four thousand years of education on substantive topics such as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Scholarly Ethics, etc? Are these fundamental educational concepts beyond the scope and remit of Wikiversity and other WMF-sponsored projects? Is that what donors are funding in the name of a 501(‍c)(3)tax-exempt educational enterprise? —Barry Kort 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you use the wrong formula to calculate the moral arc of civil disobedience, Moulton. The point is that your stand has to cost you something. It is the injustice of your willing loss at the hands of the people you seek to change that produces the change inside that opponent. By risking only inconsequential losses, such as an IP block or a website ban you fail to reach the required threshold to produce the desired impact. Worse by endless reiteration of this low risk confrontations you become seen as merely annoying. Got to take the fire hose, face the police dogs, stand up to the tank. Maybe the whole approach is wrong in the virtual world or maybe you can figure out how to up the stakes to a level that matters.

[Moulton]

I think you use the wrong formula to calculate the moral arc of civil disobedience, Moulton. The point is that your stand has to cost you something. It is the injustice of your willing loss at the hands of the people you seek to change that produces the change inside that opponent. By risking only inconsequential losses, such as an IP block or a website ban you fail to reach the required threshold to produce the desired impact. Worse by endless reiteration of this low risk confrontations you become seen as merely annoying. Got to take the fire hose, face the police dogs, stand up to the tank. Maybe the whole approach is wrong in the virtual world or maybe you can figure out how to up the stakes to a level that matters.

GBG, my stance costs me the opportunity to do what I value most — namely the opportunity to play a significant role as an impassioned and dedicated educator in an online learning community reaching out to serious and engaged learners of all ages around the world.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Somey]

GBG, my stance costs me the opportunity to do what I value most — namely the opportunity to play a significant role as an impassioned and dedicated educator in an online learning community reaching out to serious and engaged learners of all ages around the world.

My guess is that GBG meant that the cost would have to involve something that's universally seen as consequential, i.e., life, limb, freedom, or perhaps dignity (the latter of which isn't really compatible with WMF-project participation in general).

Maybe you're just living in the wrong era! You would have had better luck in the mid-17th Century, but of course there were no wikis then.

[Moulton]

GBG, my stance costs me the opportunity to do what I value most — namely the opportunity to play a significant role as an impassioned and dedicated educator in an online learning community reaching out to serious and engaged learners of all ages around the world.

My guess is that GBG meant that the cost would have to involve something that's universally seen as consequential, i.e., life, limb, freedom, or perhaps dignity (the latter of which isn't really compatible with WMF-project participation in general).

I'm 65 years old, so I don't have all that many years left to work on discovering the solution to a problem that's plagued all educators (not just science educators and not just me) — namely how to reach out to resistant and reluctant learners who are not particularly thrilled about how our existing education system operates.

Maybe you're just living in the wrong era! You would have had better luck in the mid-17th Century, but of course there were no wikis then.

Well yeah. I had naively thought that we had completed the Age of Enlightenment and were poised to move forward into 21st Century Education without pausing for a banal interlude to lampoon long-forgotten anachronisms by means of a Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd.

[GlassBeadGame]

I think you use the wrong formula to calculate the moral arc of civil disobedience, Moulton. The point is that your stand has to cost you something. It is the injustice of your willing loss at the hands of the people you seek to change that produces the change inside that opponent. By risking only inconsequential losses, such as an IP block or a website ban you fail to reach the required threshold to produce the desired impact. Worse by endless reiteration of this low risk confrontations you become seen as merely annoying. Got to take the fire hose, face the police dogs, stand up to the tank. Maybe the whole approach is wrong in the virtual world or maybe you can figure out how to up the stakes to a level that matters.

GBG, my stance costs me the opportunity to do what I value most — namely the opportunity to play a significant role as an impassioned and dedicated educator in an online learning community reaching out to serious and engaged learners of all ages around the world.

Then risk that. Willingly let WV deprive you of that by their very own hands. Explain how important that is to you and then let them take it away from you. Don't evade the consequence. Suffer it gladly.

Don't confuse civil disobedience with guerrilla warfare.

[Moulton]

GBG, I'm not doing Guerrilla Warfare.

I'm doing Guerrilla Theater.

[GlassBeadGame]

GBG, I'm not doing Guerrilla Warfare.

I'm doing Guerrilla Theater.

Maybe but it not consistent with civil disobedience.

[Moulton]

GBG, I'm not doing Guerrilla Warfare. I'm doing Guerrilla Theater.

Maybe but it's not consistent with civil disobedience.

It is if Inspector Javert outlaws staging a comedic reprise of Les Miserables.

[TungstenCarbide]

Well yeah. I had naively thought that we had completed the Age of Enlightenment and were poised to move forward into 21st Century Education ...

Na, we're still the same predator/gatherers from a hundred thousand years ago. We still form groups, in big scale and small scale, and these groups proceeded to kill each other and take their stuff. Murdering is a horrendous crime unless you do it for your group, in which case you are a war hero. Nothing changes, this is what we are.

In the grand scheme of things, has 10,000 years of organized education reduced warfare?

Out of all the countries that have been in existence for at least three generations, what percentage haven't been in a war during that time, Moulton?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[GlassBeadGame]

GBG, I'm not doing Guerrilla Warfare. I'm doing Guerrilla Theater.

Maybe but it's not consistent with civil disobedience.

It is if Inspector Javert outlaws staging a comedic reprise of Les Miserables.

What you do with blocked IP ranges, socks and other "guerrilla theater" tacits are a little like something described by Ché Guevara in Guerrilla Warfare. I think it is called a Repression-Resistance Spiral. You preform a prohibited act but in a hit and run fashion without clearly identifying yourself. They respond by acting against a whole segment of the population believing that it will include the wrong doers. The guerrilla then uses that segment as a base of recruitment to the cause. So getting them to make the range block is a partial success. Now the test is can you "recruit" among those also blocked? I don't see any evidence of that so far.

But this far away from civil disobedience.

[Moulton]

In the grand scheme of things, has 10,000 years of organized education reduced warfare?

On the contrary, we've learned how to make it more violent than ever.

Out of all the countries that have been in existence for at least three generations, what percentage haven't been in a war during that time, Moulton?

I guess Antarctica doesn't actually count as a country, does it?

How about Cloud Cuckooland? Doest that count?

[Ottava]

I think you use the wrong formula to calculate the moral arc of civil disobedience, Moulton. The point is that your stand has to cost you something. It is the injustice of your willing loss at the hands of the people you seek to change that produces the change inside that opponent. By risking only inconsequential losses, such as an IP block or a website ban you fail to reach the required threshold to produce the desired impact. Worse by endless reiteration of this low risk confrontations you become seen as merely annoying. Got to take the fire hose, face the police dogs, stand up to the tank. Maybe the whole approach is wrong in the virtual world or maybe you can figure out how to up the stakes to a level that matters.

Nice.

Would you give permission to have that quote copied into, say, an essay about the subject for future use?

I find it true mostly in that Moulton is making straw men martyrs (people who are also "affected") instead of suffering from pain himself, or any real pain. Plus, Civil Disobedience (ala Thoreau) would require you to -go- to jail and abide by the sentence while stating that you are disobeying because the law is wrong (thus, accepting the law's ramification while stating that it is inappropriate). Moulton hasn't abided by his ban/punishment at all.

Instead, he is more of a Nation of Islam "By Any Means Necessary" or Weather Underground type of action - terrorist like activity in order to fight an unjust enemy because you determined someone was unjust (and thus applied that it must be a universal feeling).


Hell, Moulton could have been able to do whatever he wanted if he would have just stopped using people's real identities on the site. What a horrifying punishment. I would love terms as easy as that.

[ulsterman]

Out of all the countries that have been in existence for at least three generations, what percentage haven't been in a war during that time, Moulton?

There are a few. There is Switzerland, of course, which has been neutral since 1815. The Irish Republic has not been in a war (other than internal civil wars) since it came into existence. Spain has not been in a war since the Spanish-American War (other than internal civil wars).

[Moulton]

I think you use the wrong formula to calculate the moral arc of civil disobedience, Moulton. The point is that your stand has to cost you something. It is the injustice of your willing loss at the hands of the people you seek to change that produces the change inside that opponent. By risking only inconsequential losses, such as an IP block or a website ban you fail to reach the required threshold to produce the desired impact. Worse by endless reiteration of this low risk confrontations you become seen as merely annoying. Got to take the fire hose, face the police dogs, stand up to the tank. Maybe the whole approach is wrong in the virtual world or maybe you can figure out how to up the stakes to a level that matters.

I find it true mostly in that Moulton is making straw men martyrs (people who are also "affected") instead of suffering from pain himself, or any real pain. Plus, Civil Disobedience (ala Thoreau) would require you to -go- to jail and abide by the sentence while stating that you are disobeying because the law is wrong (thus, accepting the law's ramification while stating that it is inappropriate). Moulton hasn't abided by his ban/punishment at all.

One doesn't have to be a masochist to engage in civil disobedience.

Get this straight, Jeffrey. I am not into bondage and discipline. That may be your thing, but it's not mine.

My case is closer to that of Jean Valjean (who did escape from unjust confinement). Thoreau only spent a night in jail. You might recall that Wales decreed an infinite sentence for the crime of writing atrocious song parodies and publishing them on an obscure external blog that no one but IDCab ever looked at.

Jeff, if you insist on converting a 501(‍c)(3) donor-funded educational project into a B&D Fetish site, then I do intend to call you out on it, and by your real name, sir.

Have I made myself clear?

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[The Joy]

Out of all the countries that have been in existence for at least three generations, what percentage haven't been in a war during that time, Moulton?

There are a few. There is Switzerland, of course, which has been neutral since 1815. The Irish Republic has not been in a war (other than internal civil wars) since it came into existence. Spain has not been in a war since the Spanish-American War (other than internal civil wars).

Not to take your mike away from you, but that's not completely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_War_%281920%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifni_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Legion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Legion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army#Operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army#Pe...eeping_Missions

[Eva Destruction]

Spain has not been in a war since the Spanish-American War (other than internal civil wars).

• Infi War
• Western Sahara War
• Kosovo War
• Iraq War
• War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

But yeah, aside from that…

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[tarantino]

Moulton hasn't abided by ⋯

According to the wikimedia foundation's terms of use, which is linked to on every wikiversity page, Moulton only has to abide by the CC-BY-SA license. As far as I can see, he isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, immoral or against the terms of use.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm 65 years old, so I don't have all that many years left to work on discovering the solution to a problem that's plagued all educators (not just science educators and not just me) — namely how to reach out to resistant and reluctant learners who are not particularly thrilled about how our existing education system operates.

I don't know why, but that statement brought this to mind:

[GlassBeadGame]

Spain has not been in a war since the Spanish-American War (other than internal civil wars).

• Infi War
• Western Sahara War
• Kosovo War
• Iraq War
• War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

But yeah, aside from that…

Spanish Civil War, the full dress rehearsal for WWII. The Republic fought Italian and German forces supporting the Fascists including air forces. Soviets and Mexico sent advisors and material support to the Republic. The West blockaded both sides dooming the Republic. Not to mention the International Brigades. It was hardly an internal matter. The losses were huge.

[thekohser]

They respond by acting against a whole segment of the population believing that it will include the wrong doers. The guerrilla then uses that segment as a base of recruitment to the cause. So getting them to make the range block is a partial success. Now the test is can you "recruit" among those also blocked? I don't see any evidence of that so far.

Could be because so few Internet users give a fig about editing backwater sites like Wikiversity.

[GlassBeadGame]

They respond by acting against a whole segment of the population believing that it will include the wrong doers. The guerrilla then uses that segment as a base of recruitment to the cause. So getting them to make the range block is a partial success. Now the test is can you "recruit" among those also blocked? I don't see any evidence of that so far.

Could be because so few Internet users give a fig about editing backwater sites like Wikiversity.

I think that's right.

[Moulton]

According to the wikimedia foundation's terms of use, which is linked to on every wikiversity page, Moulton only has to abide by the CC-BY-SA license. As far as I can see, he isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, immoral or against the terms of use.

From the Terms of Use page...

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. — Wikimedia Foundation Vision Statement

See, you have to imagine it, because it doesn't actually obtain.

[ulsterman]

Not to take your mike away from you, but that's not completely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_War_%281920%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifni_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Legion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Legion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army#Operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army#Pe...eeping_Missions

This is an interesting problem of definitions. For example, the WP article on Switzerland says

"Switzerland being a neutral country, its army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries. However, over the years, the Swiss army has been part of several peacekeeping missions around the world."

Is sending peacekeepers regarded as synonymous with declaring war on another country, or being invaded by them? If so, I concede that few if any countries have not been at war in the last 60 or so years. Still, it seems a crazy definition to me.

• Infi War
• Western Sahara War
• Kosovo War
• Iraq War
• War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

The Infi War and Western Sahara War were internal hence count as civil wars.

[Moulton]

It begs the definition of war, although to my mind, it's not war unless the blood of innocents is shed, where the innocents include children whose parents are not warriors.

Somewhere out there, in WikiQuoteLand, you will find the saying, "War is Hell."

"Hell" is a very scary (and very old-fashioned) word. In the Old Testament, "Hell" is called "She'ol" (which literally means "pit"). The modern mathematical abstraction is "an untamed recursion" but I daresay few readers have the requisite depth in mathematics to appreciate how to model Hell as an untamed recursion.

The problem for the Swiss is the challenge of peace-making without resorting to violence in the process. It's the same problem that Jesus tried to solve some 2000 years ago. I doubt the Passion Play was very much fun for Christ, who had to endure the tortures of bondage and discipline at the hands of the Romans and teh communiteh. On the Internet, it's not exactly a fargenigen to reprise the role of Caprice, the Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel. But, still, it works better for me as a musical.

[Moulton]

Meantime, back at the ranch...

So Abd blocked Ottava for being incivil to SB_Johnny, whereupon Ottava immediatly retaliated by unsponsoring Abd (thereby abruptly terminating Abd's probationary Custodianship).

So Abd starts over again to see if there is another Custodian willing to act as a sponsoring mentor.

Adam then grills Abd...

Discussion full custodian

Question Could you clarify the status of your relationship with Moulton? Have you met with him in real life or arranged to do so? Adambro 17:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to meet with him once when I was in Boston for a colloquium, it fell through. There is no current arrangement to meet, but I do hope to meet with him relatively soon. My goal is to negotiate some settlement with him that would be acceptable both to him and to the Wikiversity community. I don't know if that's possible, but we will never know if we don't try, and I'm willing to put personal time into it. The result could save a whole boatload of disruption. If it fails, things won't be worse! Thanks for asking. --Abd 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I know you feel strongly about avoiding conflict of interests and so it seemed relevant since you've been involved to some degree with dealing with Moulton on-wiki and I became aware of a suggestion that you two might have arranged to meet. Regarding Moulton, my view is that he has shown he isn't really interested in negotiating and so I don't think we should keep trying, I don't think it is necessarily true that more failed attempts won't make things worse. As far as I am aware, Diego was mostly responsible for inviting Moulton to create the account Caprice and as far as I can tell, that effort provided a further demonstration of why his block is appropriate. However, it also seemed to reignite the Moulton situation and prompt him to make sustained attempts to evade his block and involve himself in community discussions. As I understand it, Moulton wasn't very active in evading his block recently before Diego's involvement. I'd suggest that Diego's failed attempts to negotiate with Moulton have caused disruption. I would therefore suggest that we shouldn't keep trying to negotiate if nothing seems to change and it would have been preferable to have had a proper community discussion about Moulton before these attempts to negotiate with Moulton were commenced. Adambro 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Adambro. My work with Moulton does not depend on my being a custodian.

You might notice that I also blocked Caprice at one point, and assisted you in reverting Moulton IP for a time. I disagree with your opinion about the wisdom of negotiation, and your attitude and approach, if continued, is pretty much guaranteed to continue disruption as an institution. I don't think I used tools outside of a reasonable effort to test the waters, and, if you will look at what actually happened during the brief unblock period that you terminated without any misbehavior after unblock, Moulton was relatively cooperative and civil. However, there had been no unblock agreement, so "failure" at that point was quite a reasonable possibility, so I was watching closely. The problem with Diego's unblock is that it was unconditional, apparently, and thus predictably failed. Against this, Adambro, is the fact that maintaining the block against a determined and experienced user takes constant effort, maintained, possibly, over years, and, involving range blocks and page protections, causes collateral damage. A little test, closely watched, is nothing compared to that. Obviously, I cannot make any agreement with Moulton as a representative of the community, but only individually, whether I'm a custodian or not, unless I'm authorized by the community, which I'm not. I'm an "ad hoc representative" of an "imputed or anticipated consensus" that may not exist yet. I would bring any agreement here for community approval. You also have to see that from Moulton's POV, being blocked is not a bad thing, it allows him to toy with you, taunt you, play cat and mouse games, and demonstrate abusive sysopping by tempting you to become excessive. Definitely a problem, Adambro, but the question is how to resolve it. Punishment doesn't work, period.

The situation of Moulton is quite complex, to truly examine it would take a lot of words. The situation of Thekohser (alternate account: Ethical Accountability} is simpler; there, you have been blocking based on what community consensus? I've asked you, you only came up with vague off-wiki claims. I unblocked directly, after making sure that Thekohser was willing to try to cooperate, and was reversed by you, again without actual misbehavior and, indeed, the reverse. You have also blocked Thekohser IP without disruption appearing from that IP, nothing requiring sysop action (that's the whole idea of personally identified, self-reverted edits, no blocking necessary to keep unreviewed comment out from a blocked editor). I consider that you are in violation of policy in some of the blocks, but, hey, one thing at a time. I've also seen you as flexible, willing to consider other ways, and I hope that can continue. The real problem here is the lack of effective community supervision and guidance of custodians. --Abd 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam...

Come let us reason together.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[A Horse With No Name]

The problem for the Swiss is the challenge of peace-making without resorting to violence in the process.

Oh no...not another smack against the Swiss! First this guy got into the act:

Adam then grills Abd...

I like my Abd grilled medium rare! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Moulton]

Ottava Rima has now launched a putsch against Wikiversity Bureaucrat, James T. Neill.

[EricBarbour]

Ottava Rima has now launched a putsch against Wikiversity Bureaucrat, James T. Neill.

And so far, it's not going too well for Ottava.

I wonder if we should take bets on when Ottava will attack Darklama, then Adambro.
He's going mad, and dragging WV down the booby hatch with him.

[Ottava]

Ottava Rima has now launched a putsch against Wikiversity Bureaucrat, James T. Neill.

And so far, it's not going too well for Ottava.

I wonder if we should take bets on when Ottava will attack Darklama, then Adambro.
He's going mad, and dragging WV down the booby hatch with him.

Going bad for who? And why would I attack anyone?

And if you notice, there is nothing there that asks for Jtneill's cratship. Abd's time at Wikiversity is done. Diego/Mister Wiki actually looks great in comparison. It was a feat only Abd could accomplish. JWS is pretty much ignored and done. Moulton is still banned. Thekohser had his chance blown by Abd's screw ups.

Nothing has really changed.

By the way, come to the IRC room sometime if you want to talk to the community. Then, maybe, you would see the real side of things.

[EricBarbour]

By the way, come to the IRC room sometime if you want to talk to the community. Then, maybe, you would see the real side of things.

Thank you, sir, but I think not.
I'm not really into Psychiatric BDSM.

[Moulton]

The Final Absolution

Ottava Rima has now launched a putsch against Wikiversity Bureaucrat, James T. Neill.

And so far, it's not going too well for Ottava.

Now, if you're blue
And you don't know where to go to
Why don't you go where Ottava sits
Putsch is on the fritz

I wonder if we should take bets on when Ottava will attack Darklama, then Adambro. He's going mad, and dragging WV down the booby hatch with him.

Abd's time at Wikiversity is done. Nothing has really changed.

Mine ears have heard the story with the strumming of the chord:
Whilst galumphing through the Wiki where the Jimbo Juice is stored;
Abd's loosed the dread banhammer upon Ottava's deft word:
His Juice is marching on.

By the way, come to the IRC room sometime if you want to talk to the community. Then, maybe, you would see the real side of things.

Thank you, sir, but I think not. I'm not really into Psychiatric BDSM.

Hah. Adam has blocked 70,000 IPs in four domains in three states plus the entire IPv6 network worldwide.

B&D a fargenigen
Adambro men ken a bootkick krigen
A schnook, a Kort, a silent scream
Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing.

(Cut Speech.)

[SB_Johnny]

He's going mad, and dragging WV down the booby hatch with him.

Going?

Going?




Gone.

And if you notice, there is nothing there that asks for Jtneill's cratship. Abd's time at Wikiversity is done. Diego/Mister Wiki actually looks great in comparison. It was a feat only Abd could accomplish. JWS is pretty much ignored and done. Moulton is still banned. Thekohser had his chance blown by Abd's screw ups.

He baneth the trolls on the wikis, he fighteth the trolls on WR, he fighteth on the irc channels and mailinglists, he fighteth on the blogs skypeth the loyal followers of the almighty Jimbo.

And so, having valiantly shamed the last of the meddlesome academics and vanquished his demonic critics, Lord Ottava declares "mission accomplished!", and leads his saintly followers down the noble path of making Wikiversity quiet and contributor-free.

Almighty Jimbo, surely, will see that it is good, and ready his angels for another closure vote.

(We need a calligraphy font).

[Zoloft]

He banneth the trolls on the wikis, he fighteth the trolls on WR, he fighteth on the irc channels and mailinglists, he fighteth on the blogs and skypeth the loyal followers of the almighty Jimbo.

And so, having valiantly shamed the last of the meddlesome academics and vanquished his demonic critics, Lord Ottava declares "mission accomplished!", and leads his saintly followers down the noble path of making Wikiversity quiet and contributor-free.

Almighty Jimbo surely will see that it is good, and ready his angels for another closure vote.

I dunno... A certain amount of illumination is available. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Zoloft: