Wikiversity Follies

The resident scholars of Wikiversity have declined to address these issues within their own community.

ArbCom Review of FeloniousMonk

The Wikipedia Administrator, FeloniousMonk, who relied on the unexamined testimony of Don Hopkins and Bela in his scathing indictment of Moulton, has been unanimously adjudged by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) as guilty of corruption and gross violations of policy, including "meritless accusations against other editors on multiple occasions."

Moulton 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel vindicated? Do you think you can stop fixating so much on this and move on to helping improve things yet? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not feel vindicated. Here are two items of evidence for that:

“

(09/22/2008 11:14:24 PM) Caprice: So far, only Privatemusings has responded to your ethics exercise. (11:16:50 PM) Ottava: I told everyone to stop and I halted it because of your actions and continued crusade on your talk page (11:16:59 PM) Ottava: I told you that you had to devote yourself to the process or I would stop it (11:17:03 PM) Ottava: and you failed on your end (09/23/2008 07:01:22 AM) Caprice: Are you saying you told everyone to discontinue civil discourse with Moulton? (07:01:22 AM) Ottava is not logged in

”

“

From: Moulton To: NewYorkBrad, James Forrester Cc: PrivateMusings, Cla68, Viridae, DTobias, Sam Korn Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:37 AM Subject: Please remediate the harm to the reputations of those sorely mistreated by rogue administrators. In view of this finding by ArbCom... “ 2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([43]) ([44]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([45]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([46]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([47]). ” ...I request that ArbCom expressly undertake to remediate the damage to the reputation and good name of others who were inappropriately harmed by the pattern of conduct delineated in the above cited Paragraph 2.1. Please give us back our good name. Barry -- The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.

”

I will feel vindicated if and when the serious scholars here eschew the unbecoming, unprofessional, unwise, unwarranted, and unsustainable culture of incivility, narcissistic wounding, anankastic conditionals, binding, gagging, and kicking people, and petulantly refusing to adopt and abide by the sensible protocols of scholarly ethics.

Moulton 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Community-Wide Peer Review of Exceptional Practices

There is underway a community-wide peer review of exceptional practices that I would like to participate in, both as plaintiff and as a defendant in regard to the collection of practices currently under review.

• With respect to Case #33, where I am named as a miscreant, I would like to be afforded a fair opportunity to respond to my critics, in the venue where they lodge their criticism, at the time they lodge them, so as to maintain timely continuity of the discourse there, in accordance with the protocols of scholarly ethics.

• With respect to Case #34 where I am accused of engaging in collaborative studies and collaborative research with another scholar, I would like to be afforded a fair opportunity to respond to my critics, in the venue where they lodge their criticism, at the time they lodge them, so as to maintain timely continuity of the discourse there, in accordance with the protocols of scholarly ethics.

• With respect to Case #40, I would like to add my name as an aggrieved party and plaintiff, and name Cary Bass, Jimbo Wales, Cormaggio, McCormack, SB_Johnny, Centaur of Attention, Salmon of Doubt, Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, Sxeptomaniac, and Guillame Paumier as respondents who have, at times (and in varying degrees of impropriety) acted in a lamentably uncongenial, uncollegial, unscholarly, unprofessional, unethical, unbecoming, incivil, and ultimately unsustainable manner so as to alienate, aggravate, disturb, annoy, frustrate, dispirit, vex, and perplex me (and perhaps other scholars engaged in their quiet studies) beyond reasonably tolerable levels of adaptation to a hostile learning environment whilst I am striving to address and solve nearly intractable ethical conundrums and dilemmas.

Moulton 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can add my name to the list above if you are going to seriously add Cormaggio, McCormack, or SB Johnny. I've yelled at you plenty of times over many of your actions and have told you straight up when I thought you were far over the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you understand that this is not an indictment in which I seek harsh sanctions or punishments (such as spanking or gagging or other forms of S&M bondage), then I would be happy to include you in a scholarly peer review of the issues raised in these three cases involving elements of candor, collaboration, and inclusion. —Moulton 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that any complaint that you file against the aforementioned names should also include me. I was directly involved as one of the 3 bureaucrats that supported your block from this site. I also participated in the decision to kickban you out of the #wikiversity-en irc channel. But, it is really up to you if you feel that these constitute a complaint for #40. I just wanted to remind you of these things in the name of a thorough and balanced review. --mikeu ^talk 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, as long as you understand that this is not an indictment in which I seek harsh sanctions or punishments (such as spanking or gagging or kicking or other forms of S&M bondage and discipline), then I would be happy to include you in a scholarly peer review of the issues raised in these three cases involving elements of candor, collaboration, and inclusion in the sober process of conflict resolution.

In particular, I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:

• H₀:Benign AGF (Assume Good Faith) that nothing sinister, nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary has happened here in Wikiversity or in the associated IRC channels.

• H₁:Speculative (and as yet unproven) hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).

H₁ is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are systems scientists, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty. Those here who are actors in a constructed reality soap opera will probably have little or no idea what I'm talking about.

So far, the acknowledged actions of the majority of resident scholars here has reified (rather than refuted) H₁. It is still possible for H₁ to be falsified, but to the best of my knowledge and awareness, that has not yet happened as of this moment in the remarkable history of Wikiversity.

Moulton 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's Answers to Filll's 8 Questions

The following subpage, retrieved from Google cache, is currently not available at the English Wikipedia. It is temporarily reproduced here until an Admin on the English Wikipedia can restore it.

User talk:Moulton/Answers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Moulton

From the talk page of the RfC/ID, here is the section with Gnixon's answers to Filll's 8 questions, with my comments at the second level of indent.

Answers

See Filll's questions above. I'm answering these in consideration of his response to my request for a link to some of his "plenty of evidence." I'll sign each answer in case of further comment. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) If Moulton was such an easy obvious "shameful" case, why did 20 people have trouble with him at his RfC? Including those who initially supported him?

I didn't say it was easy or obvious, just that it was handled shamefully. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the RfC which Filll and ConfuciusOrnis filed against me was shameful and deserving of a careful review by responsible officials to determine whether it conformed to the English Wikipedia's standards for due process. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(2) Why were his appeals to Arbcomm turned down twice?

Interesting question. I'm not sure. I suspect they're busy, and they didn't look deeply enough to appreciate that their intervention was required. I believe one arbitrator later said something to the effect of "we probably got this one wrong." (Happy to go dig up link if you require it.) Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I only filed one appeal to ArbCom, and that was to request that ArbCom review the RfC and subsequent block to adjudge whether or not I was afforded due process in accordance with the community standards of the English Wikipedia. ArbCom declined to take up that question, without explanation (but see the remarks of GRBerry and Lar at AN/Moulton). The second appeal was filed by Ryan Postlethwaite, and was turned down as premature, as other community processes were still underway. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(3) Why did all three of the people who wanted him unblocked and wanted to mentor him recently all decide that they did not think he should be unblocked and that they did not want to mentor him?

If I recall correctly, it had to do with the fact that he refused to specifically ask to be unblocked. One interpretation of his refusal is that he found it unfair to be forced to swear a specific oath to the conduct policies in order to be reinstated, when it was his opponents whose conduct he thought was grossly inappropriate. I don't know if it was even appropriate for well-meaning outsiders to suggest to him that he needed mentoring. Happy to discuss further. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no theory of mind regarding the cognition, affect, or decision-making of others in this particular question and issue. It occurs to me that it would make more sense to ask each of them directly to answer this question, rather than speculate on what was going through their minds at the time. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(4) Why did Moulton not do what Filll requested to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article?

I don't really know. What I recall from a cursory look at your advice is that you recommended he (a) generate published personal statements from Picard or news stories about her to represent her position on ASDFD and (b) address WP:UNDUE by adding information not about ASDFD instead of trimming the ASDFD stuff. I personally thought there were simpler ways to address the problem. Perhaps Moulton chose not to follow your advice because he disagreed with it, but that's pure speculation. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, Rosalind Picard had never spoken of or written about Intelligent Design or her attitude toward it, nor did it appear to me that she had any obligation to take time out from her overloaded schedule to do so, just to convince Filll that he had jumped to an erroneous conclusion about her beliefs. Note that later, Picard did answer a journalist's questions on the subject, at which time she expressed skepticism of the concept of Intelligent Design. (Quote: "I think we should be much more skeptical," she said.) That's not too surprising, since she routinely expresses scientific skepticism of any and all proposed hypotheses, and expects those interested in advancing such novel hypotheses to rigorously support them with solid evidence and careful reasoning, in accordance with the protocols of the Scientific Method. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(5) Why did Picard not indicate that she had the same concerns as Moulton when in communication with Filll?

I don't know much about her communication with you, but I've seen that she tried to address the concerns by editing the article directly. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Picard did indicate, in an E-Mail of August 29, 2007 responding to Bob Stevens <hound9_3@yahoo.com>, that she had the same concern as me. In that message to Filll and to me, with a copy to Alexandra Kahn (the Media Relations Officer at the MIT Media Lab), Picard wrote, "I do appreciate all of your efforts on my behalf and hope we can achieve whatever needs achieving peacefully. And I do thank you, each, for what seems to be a nice shared goal of trying to get objective accurate information online." Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(6) Why did Moulton not do what Durova asked him to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article?

Moulton was asked to generate published articles for reference or a personal request from the subject of the biography. I was surprised Durova thought such extreme measures were required---I thought there were easier solutions. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did publish two such articles. One appeared on August 31 2007 as an Op-Ed piece in the Hard News Cafe, an award-winning online publication of the School of Journalism and Communication at Utah State University. The other, which the first one referenced, appeared on August 28 2007 as a personal memoir on my personal blog, Moulton Lava. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(7) Why was Moulton banned from at least 4 other online communities before this?

I don't really know, and I think it's only relevant if there's a striking pattern of egregious behavior on his part. The evidence you've provided doesn't convince me there is such a pattern, so there may or may not be one. See my other responses to this point upthread. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting and important question, and I urge Filll, Gnixon, Dtobias, Random832, and any other interested party to investigate it carefully. I believe you will find the answers to be quite suprising and illuminating. I will be happy to provide helpful pointers to otherwise hard-to-find URLs which speak to this fascinating question. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(8) Was Wikipedia really so unfair to Moulton? Has he not had way more time and attention than most people in his situation? Including at least 3 appearances on WP:NTWW and several AN and AN/I threads and two RfArs and most recently a chance to build a case for himself on his unlocked talk page? So please let's cut with the whining and deal with the facts here. If you think he was so hard done by, why do you not volunteer to mentor him, with the condition that if he screws up again, both of you are banned immediately, no questions asked? How does that sound? Are you ready to stake your editing privileges on it?

Moulton is a distinguished scientist who earned his Ph.D. from Stanford years before I was born. I would frankly feel quite silly offering to "mentor" him. I do think Wikipedia treated him unfairly. Since you're asking my opinion, I think it happened because a group of editors was so caught up in their crusade against ID-on-Wikipedia that they couldn't recognize valid criticism, and moreover, that many of those editors resorted to despicable tactics in order to get their way. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My view was that the "despicable tactics" of the ID Editors were not only outlandish, they were egregious enough to merit documentation and analysis in the Media Ethics blog associated with the undergraduate course on Ethics in Journalism at Utah State University. Moulton (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See also the first two days worth of E-Mail from Bob Stevens to me and to Alexandra Kahn, Media Relations Officer of the MIT Media Lab.

Ridiculous Fascination

There is a fascinating discussion underway for the past two weeks on the Wikipedia Administrators' Notice Board. It concerns the status of this writer, who has been indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia since 9/11 of last year. The blocking notice currently reads as follows:

Unauthorized

---

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.

Editing from Moulton (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by FeloniousMonk for the following reason(s):

Disruptive editing: Restoring community ban, arbcom rejected reopening case. no grounds for undertow to reduce ban duration

This block has been set to expire: indefinite.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email.

The aforementioned discussion seeks to arrive at a community-wide consensus on whether the status displayed above was properly arrived at.

Viewpoints vary.

One observer likened my memorable experience to being "mugged" in a Massive Multi-Player Online Narcissistic Wounding and Mugging Game (MMPONWMG). Elsewhere, other observers have commented on how ridiculous the game appears to be, wondering whether noting the ridiculousness of the game is grounds for exclusion from playing it.

It all reminds me of Fyodor Dostoevsky, who wrote a mostly forgotten short story, "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man."

Whether Dostoevsky's allegory has any meaning in this context, I leave it for qualified literary analysts to opine.

Relevant Discussions

The following page section, retrieved from Google cache, is currently not available on the English Wikipedia. It is temporarily reproduced here until an Admin on the English Wikipedia can restore it.

Relevant Discussions

• Talk:Rosalind_Picard/archive1


• User_talk:Moulton/Archive 1


• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton


• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton


• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton


• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive105#Possible_unblock_of_Moulton


• User_talk:Moulton/Archive 2


• Request to Arbcom to investigate RfC process, declined with minimal comment


• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#BLP_tag-teaming_by_User:Orangemarlin


• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Moulton


• User:Random832/User:Moulton


• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence


• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Moulton


• User:Filll/Moultonunblock (referenced in WP:AN/Moulton)


• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Moulton, dismissed as untimely


• User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton (referenced in RfAr/C68-FM-SV, RfAr#Moulton, and Talk:RfC/ID#Questions)


• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Intelligent_design_editors


• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Intelligent_Design


• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design


• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design


• User_talk:Moulton

The Fearsome Basilisque

Moulton's blog

If Moulton were of a mind to remove whatever content is hosted on his blog that is causing it to be unacceptable to link to it, what would he have do to accomplish this? —Random832 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the enwikiversity community to discuss this. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a "foundation directive"; I don't see how the community is relevant. —Random832 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see any directive by the Foundation? If you have a problem with the Wikiversity community you need to discuss it with them. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=303375 Edit summary "per foundation directive". —Random832 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That edit summary is erroneous. There is no "foundation directive". The English Wikiversity, like every other active project is autonimous. If you want an answer on this, discuss the matter with the individual who performed that edit. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no operative "Foundation directive" and no applicable local policy at Wikiversity, then the links are not in violation of any directive or applicable policy. But in any event, there is no "outting" on them anyway. That's a ridiculous canard ginned up by the person leveling the complaint. Even if there were an applicable policy, it would still be necessary to demonstrate that the complaint is valid. The party lodging the complaint has a long history of such sham acts. —Moulton 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discourse from Wikiversity

“

My own personal opinion (based on private discussions with a number of Wikiversitans) is that Wikiversity is still in development and that it's certainly not large enough to absorb the fractious drama inevitably generated by the "Wikipedia Ethics" project, which, given its current state could not possibly move beyond personal agenda-driven soliliquys. For the Wikiversity remain engaged in it is to risk further alienating the remaining project leaders and will erode any community left. Moulton has continuously demonstrated that he is only interested in his own ends, achieved only by "outing" people on the Wikipedia project and, quite likely, anyone who wants to disagree with him too vehemently. No project based on that sort of bullying and fearmongering can possibly succeed. Bastique 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Bullies and fear-mongers should be indef blocked and not allowed to chase off the rest of us. Both here and at Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had had more arbcom decisions like w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, then this ethics project would never have been needed. WAS 4.250 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

”

I would like some help in reviewing Bastique's soliloquy, above, as I am unclear on his agenda.

I agree with the sentiment that there is a systematic program of alienation underway at Wikiversity. I propose we review the sources, causes, and time-dynamics of that process of alienation.

Although Cary Bass and I have had zero direct communication, he has nonetheless tendered his remarkably original theory of mind regarding my interests, methods, and objectives. I am unclear how Cary could form such a haphazard theory of mind. Upon what evidence, reasoning, or analysis does his curious theory repose?

Finally, what is the name of the fear that Cary is projecting in his fascinating soliloquy on Cormaggio's subpage?

Moulton 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)