Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! Options

[Rootology]

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...=User%3AMoulton

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity..._for_incivility

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]

Like it's actually a more useful approach to goad, taunt, and troll people in power on Wikipedia just for the fun of it, provoking them into banning you, and then continue to tweak their noses using sockpuppets to ensure that you stay banned, all the while insisting that you're always right and everybody who disagrees with you is always wrong, and that you are eminently qualified to make pompous pronouncements about all the philosophical flaws of Wikipedia and how the only way to fix them would be to scrap all their community-created policies and replace them with ones you made up? That approach has been really successful for the various people around here who have tried it.

----------------
Now playing: Cyndi Lauper - She Bop
via FoxyTunes

[Milton Roe]

Like it's actually a more useful approach to goad, taunt, and troll people in power on Wikipedia just for the fun of it, provoking them into banning you, and then continue to tweak their noses using sockpuppets to ensure that you stay banned, all the while insisting that you're always right and everybody who disagrees with you is always wrong, and that you are eminently qualified to make pompous pronouncements about all the philosophical flaws of Wikipedia and how the only way to fix them would be to scrap all their community-created policies and replace them with ones you made up? That approach has been really successful for the various people around here who have tried it.

----------------

No, we'll just make sure past mistakes are not forgotten. Jimbo can threaten to simply "remove you" but he has to do it in public, and nobody ever forgets that.

So here's Jimbo and SlimVirgin working over Gary Weiss's TALK page, apparently because WORDBOMB Bagley had, a noob then, possibly because he had made the comment that Gary posted on WP as "Mantanmoreland." Before he had a change to fix it, he was banned. SlimVirgin always claimed she couldn't remember if she'd warned him first, or not. But those stuff has been oversighted so we'll never know.

But then Jimbo steps in, and does the first wrong thing, Oct 30, 2006, courtesy blanking the deletion dicussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...on%2FGary+Weiss

Somebody wants to know why the discussion was deleted by Jimbo himself out of "courtesy"? Who gets THAT kind of personal courtesy from Jimbo? Mantanmoreland himself has the answer:

I find it hard to "Please see prior discussion(s)" if the AFD was deleted. Why was it deleted? Jimbo didn't really leave anything... well, helpful in his deletion summary. Voretus 09:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was commenced in bad faith by a user acting on behalf of banned User:WordBomb, who was subsequently determined to be an employee of a company criticized by Weiss. The AfD was in effect a libelous attack page. That may or may not be the reason it was deleted.--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss/Archive_1"

In TALK archive 2 which happens soon after, you see a real war. There's Cla68 and Dan Tobias, and socks Mantanmoreland, Samiharris, and Mantan supporters Durova, et al.

A comment by Dan:

Being able to dismiss entire categories of opinions through guilt-by-association because a banned user has espoused similar viewpoints may be useful if you favor a different viewpoint, but it is in no way compatible with NPOV. *Dan T.* 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec ... a moment ago you were lumping together a whole group of people because they form a "clique" - isn't that guilt by association? Now you claim that you are a victim of the same tactic? Okay, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you think it is wrong to be lumped together and dismissed, then just say so - rather than do the same to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas how little you know in retrospect Slrubenstein, for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris' demise is still far in the future. And Tobias is correct.

But now, Jimbo a day later (last talk page) finally gets behind Durova, G-dett, and the whole crew supporting Mantanmoreland on Oct 20, 2007 (this is the time of the Gerard rangeblock on Broadweave in Utah) but not without getting some flack. It draws Cla68 a 24 hour block.

Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same? Cla68 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, you are subject to a 24 hour block for violation of WP:POINT. The reason is that this page exists for encyclopedic collaboration, not drama. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think the block may have been a tad excessive, I did say zero tolerance and shoot on sight. Cla68, I fear that you have been manipulated by lying stalkers and trolls, and I am happy to talk to you about it privately, but I am sick of the drama around this issue on this page, and it absolutely has to come to an end. I recommend that Durova (no one else! no wheel wars please!) reduce the block as a gesture of good faith, but if Durova wants you to sit out the 24 hours, I will respect that as well. I support all reasonable efforts to clarify that the support for trolls and stalkers needs to stop.--Jimbo Wales 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and remedy and I'll respond more on your talk page. Cla68 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Jimbo. A conversation ends when all the evidence is presented and people are convinced. It does not end because a godhead says it does. When you yell "stalker" while obscuring the discussion you appear no different from Bush yelling "terrorist" while asserting executive privilege (eep, shades of Godwin's law!). I am just a casual contributor to wikipedia but I have noticed increasingly that every time I make a slightly controvertial edit, I am subjected to threats. You step on someone's pet project and suddenly they're telling you how many administrators they personally know and how quickly you'll be banned if you don't drop the issue immediately. That is not a conversation about the facts, it is an Appeal to authority. It didn't used to be this way. When the recent drama unfolded with Durova, I speculated that the formation of a "cabal" was responsible for this increase. Now that I have seen the words "shoot on sight," all doubt is removed. Those of us coming out of the woodwork because we are offended at this threatening tendency are not sockpuppets. By responding in a reactionary manner, you are causing even uninvolved parties to exhibit the behavior that you attribute to sock puppets. Bagley's probably a nutcase, but "shoot on sight" just proves his point. You simply cannot build an open encyclopedia based on the appeal to authority. It is vital that we retain the ability to accept content from anonymous users based on the quality of the content rather than the perceived separation between the contributor and the administration, and that is at risk when this is the example that you set for the other administrators. Galexander (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the better replies to Jimbo I've seen. One of the first mentions of a cabal. It comes 6 weeks after Jimbo's "shoot on sight" comment about OVERSTOCK people. Water under the bridge between, as Durova resigns/is desysoped soon after (Nov 26, 07, about a month after her highhanded Cla68 block, but of course this is not her main problem, as highhandedness with !!, Giano, and others bring her down. Bang, bang, Durova.). But it's the also the last statement Gelexander will ever make on WP. That user is not blocked, but that user has had enough. After posting a mission statement the same day, he or she goes away. Not a sock from the history, just a disgusted editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Galexander

So that's now up to the end of 2007. We all know what happens in 2008: it all comes unglued. Mantanmoreland and his calvalcade of socks are exposed, most being those Jimbo has befriended. The economy tanks. No more hairy-chested Durova after Nov. 2007, as mentioned. Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae and Bear Sterns go down (and today, Lehman Bros!) and the feds are suddenly concerned with naked shorting. Looks like somebody was right. Looks like Jimbo missed the pissed-off editors socking merely to communicate a problem with real world POV-pushing, and was bamboozed by the deepsocks, spinning the real content. He allowed abusive editors. He did courtesy deletions. He didn't listen to Cla68. And he certainly didn't listen to Dan T., who was in there on this case, on the other side, right where he should have been.

Any of this beginning to sound familiar? I mentioned SlimVirgin just once, right at the beginnning. It's not entirely her, this time. But we seem to have superficial, highhanded, powerdrunk Jimbo Wales, who NEVER, ever, seems to get it right.