User talk:Moulton: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:57, 14 May 2008 view sourceThe undertow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,802 edits No reason to have this deleted.← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:50, 14 May 2008 view source Guettarda (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits restoring Alison's version; read the page history, there is a reason for thisNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-protected}}
	] (September)

	==Biographical Information==

	I am currently a in the . My long-term field of research is the . I am currently working on the role of as a traditional method of learning.

	I am also a in the .

	My other affiliations include the at the University of Memphis and the at Utah State University where I assist in the curriculum in .

	I was formerly a Visiting Scientist in the Educational Technology Research Group at BBN Systems and Technologies. Additional professional background information can be found .

	My interest in writing encyclopedia articles in my areas of expertise dates back to 2004 when I co-authored an 8-page article entitled "Electronic (Virtual) Communities" in the ''''.

	Some of my other research interests include , , and the .

	I have a , a , and a personal blog called .

	==Objectives==

	My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ] in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

	My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

	My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of ].

	== Your request for review. ==

	You have privately asked for assistance in your blocking. Would you like to ]? ] 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I did request arbitration (via E-mail way back in September). I have not heard back from ArbCom. I also requested an administrative review via a request to Mike Godwin. I have not heard back from him either. I can forward my Petitions for Redress of Grievance to you if you don't have them at hand. Or I can post them here, now that this page is unprotected. ] (]) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	::I can unblock you to post an arbitration request. If I unblock, you must not edit anywhere except ] and any case pages that pertain to you should a case open. Is this acceptable? ] 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::That would work. I won't have time to post anything until next week, as I am heading down to DC tomorrow morning to participate in a review panel at the National Science Foundation. ] (]) 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	::::I'll let an arbitration clerk know about your request. ] 03:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::::OK. Please do your part to ensure that all discussions arising from my case are carried out in the open, above board, and without back-channel methods to subvert due process. ] (]) 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::::You are ] that I will. Normally I would have left a note for the blocking admin, however, she has not edited in over a month. I'm going to post a template of the case page to this talk, please let me know when you are done with it. ] 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	*The template is located ]. Copy to your talk page. ] 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Thank you. I'll begin filling it out next week. ] (]) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Good morning, Moulton. Please fill out the relevant information required in the below template, as we cannot file the Request for Arbitration without it. You may wish to consult ] and ] for assistance in presenting your case and how it will be handled if accepted, respectively. Don't hesitate to ] if you require any further assistance or advice in filing your Request. ] 07:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	So, this is your '''unblock condition''' if I understand correctly: You may not edit any pages besides ] (and should it be accepted, all pages related to the case) or any page in your userspace. Is that correct? - ] \| <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Moulton or me? ] 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	::Either, I think that was your intention anyway. - ] \| <sup>] / ]</sup> 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

	The third instruction states:

	{{quotation\|Fill in the names of the involved parties, and provide links to any prior attempts to resolve the dispute (such as formal or informal mediation or talk page discussion).}}

	In order to facilitate reference to talk page discussions, I will need to create an archive page for the talk page content that one of the admins previously blanked. Is there any problem with that? ] 00:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	You can link to a permanent revision in the history if need be, so long as the page was not actually deleted. ] 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	:As far as I know, nothing was permanently deleted, although some discussions have been moved to archive pages. The other thing I need to exhibit is the blocking message that KillerChihuahua posted. That one does not appear in any revision of this talk page; it appears on a template that I see on my user page, but I don't think others see that template. How do I reference or exhibit that original blocking message? ] 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	::Just go into the history, and click the appropriate date on a revision. That will bring you to a page, with a link. Here is an example, .

	::As an aside, what will you do if unblocked? Do you intend to edit articles again? ] 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	:::How do I link to something that exhibits KillerChihuahua's original blocking message, wherein she gives the reason for blocking?

	:::It's too soon to decide what I will do if unblocked, as that depends on what transpires during the course of these proceedings. If the ] are embraced and endorsed, then it's reasonable to imagine that it would be feasible for people like me to contribute to the crafting of mainspace articles. If those objectives are repudiated by ArbCom, then there would be no point in editing articles, even if I were provisionally unblocked on technical grounds related to denial of due process.

	:::I have one other question on how these cases are titled. Is there any standard convention on titling these cases? ] 01:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	:::: is your block log. Tilting? ] 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Not tilting, but titling. Do I entitle the case "Moulton" or "Moulton v. KillerChihuaha" or "KillerChihuahua" since she is the admin whose actions I am contesting. ] 02:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	No vs. You are verses anything. You are requesting a unblock review to ArbCom. "Moulton" works. ] 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	I have filled in the RfAr Template, and (unless you spot any deficiencies), I believe it is now ready for posting. Would one of you (Nathan or Anthony) please do the honors? Thank you. ] 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:{{done}}. ] 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	:::Thank you! ] 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Notice for any observing parties, I am moving to unblock Moulton, after current attempts to seek reassurance from Moulton that he will not edit any pages except his user space and the relevant RfArb. sections/pages are complete. ] 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::P.S., Moulton: check your email. ] 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I appreciate that you extended to me the courtesy of requesting that I directly and affirmatively express my intentions regarding your concerns.

	::::::Also, thank you for posting the notices to the other parties. Whose responsibility is it now to confirm those notifications on the RfAr template? ] 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Request for Arbitration Template ==

	* ].

	* .

	====Supplemental Evidence====

	There is evidence that the treatment I was afforded in the course of the RfC and its aftermath corresponds to a common formulaic script that has since been ].

	{{quotation\|New people arrive, having bought into the PR, edit for a while, and then either align with the ruling Cabal or get disgusted and leave. Anyone who dissents is accused of trolling, disruption, or not being here to write an encyclopedia. People get banned all the time, their talk pages are locked, with no discussion permitted within the community, and appeals only to Arbcom.}}

	== Unblocked ==

	Per your email agreement, I have unblocked you. However, I remind you that you are only permitted to edit: (a) pages in your user space (that includes your user talk page); and (b) the relevant sections on the Request for Arbitration you have filed, and (if it is accepted) the relevant Request for Arbitration subpages related to this case. ] 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	:Thank you. I understand. ] 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Information on the WP dominance hierarchy ==

	* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=p4M&q=admin+oversight+wikipedia+bureaucrat+developer++steward+checkuser+power+structure+wikimedia&btnG=Search
	* http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Ortega_WikiSym2007_WikipediaQuantitativeAnalysis.pdf
	* http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanScalingConsensus.pdf
	] (]) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

	Access Levels in English Misplaced Pages

	*Administrator
	Protect/unprotect pages;
	Delete/undelete pages;
	Block/unblock users;
	Special revert tools
	*Bureaucrat
	Make administrators;
	Rename users;
	Make other bureaucrats
	*Steward
	Change all user access levels on all
	Wikimedia projects
	*Oversight
	Hide page revisions from all other user
	types
	*Checkuser
	View user IP addresses
	*Developer
	Access to MediaWiki software and
	Foundation servers (various sublevels)

	] (]) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:50, 14 May 2008

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.