Scenario 1:
An active user with an unusual username on the English Wikipedia has,
for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL. An account opens up
on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly anything other
than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account. It does, however,
have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter on this wiki
if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while believing
that the account is an impostor account seems to be unwilling to resolve
the situation without demanding that the user come to the smaller
project and ask for usurpation. Obviously, we wouldn't want to force
the issue with an autonomous project.

Scenario 2:
A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
which "outs" the individuals.

Off of foundation-l and includes not one but TWO case studies!

Scenario 3:
A new user on WQ with the unusual name of FatVirgin, has started to make perfectly referenced additions regarding the medical necessity to perform vivisection without anesthesia, in experimental animal pain studies. Another user on the English Wikipedia has complained that this is harassment. FatVirgin has offered to change their name to Crum376, FT2Screw, JzzzG, JumboWhale, DavidFUGerard, or Anticipation_of_something_really_large_up_me, getting. Rather than defuse the situation, all of these have caused even more incendiary comment. Question-- how would you all define harassment? And what is this really large thing, being talked about?

More:

...actually what I'm reading here is that the OFFICE wants to figure out a way that when you're banned some place, you're banned everywhere...That's sort of the long and short of it, as far as I can see....

More:

and again - there is another tension with the community. One of the current way of getting rid of people trying to deal with people who have had issues and may currently be banned is to tell them to go to one of the other projects and conduct good works amongst the natives and then return after a vague period of time and plead for their return citing the aforementioned good works.

and again - there is another tension with the community. One of the current way of getting rid of people trying to deal with people who have had issues and may currently be banned is to tell them to go to one of the other projects and conduct good works amongst the natives and then return after a vague period of time and plead for their return citing the aforementioned good works.

That's very Roman Catholic, indeed. Thus, I can't believe the Randroid "community" came up with any such thing, except as default recognition of an ongoing phenomenon, which they might as well acquiesce to, or else get run over by.

I have to wonder if that was Ryan Jordan's idea. He was one of Wikipedia's leading scholars on Catholicism, you know.

I have to wonder if that was Ryan Jordan's idea. He was one of Wikipedia's leading scholars on Catholicism, you know.

Presumably they mean to try to extend this even to non-en. wikis, since they're after COMMONS which is already a polyglot, and not an en. project by any means.

Of course their aim is similar to BADSITES. It just makes en.wiki look bad if they ban somebody, and then that person procedes to go someplace else to another jurisdiction where they can't be extradited or (even worse) shut up, and then is more productive than your average en.WP Kabal member, and (even worse) critical of same. It's almost as though there were out there, fomenting little WR's against the mother en.wp.

And they might say snide things about en.wiki in other languages that you can't read, and other people who read those languages might laugh at en.wiki's expense, and wouldn't that just make all those WMF people die a little, inside?

Indeed, Roman Catholicism believes in redemption and forgiveness, and turning over a new leaf. Quite correct.

and again - there is another tension with the community. One of the current way of getting rid of people trying to deal with people who have had issues and may currently be banned is to tell them to go to one of the other projects and conduct good works amongst the natives and then return after a vague period of time and plead for their return citing the aforementioned good works.

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?titl...ev&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 weren 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)

one side

Scenario 2 is one sided. Why not ask for an explanation from Moulton and then publish that so people get both sides. As for me, I still don't see the need to out anyone on the Ethics project itself. But BADSITES is a bad and unworkable policy proposal that was rejected by the Wikipedia community. How about a link to a page that contains a link to a page that contains a link to an outing page? It is unworkable and game-able to ban links based on outing at that page. Especially links that are useful for other reasons. Thoughtful, careful, caring assessment of competing values and priorities is appropriate. Unthinking blind adherence to any one value (like not outing) is by definition, unreasonable. WAS 4.250 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the only side I knew: my side in my position as Volunteer Coordinator, which is based on what I've seen and my perceptions of events. It's entirely relevant to the conversation. I doubt either "side" would consider what I said, their side. I would like to stress that foundation-l is an open email list and anyone is free to join and participate in the discussion. Cary Bass demandez 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"the only side I knew: my side" Exactly my point. WAS 4.250 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Then your point makes no sense. I'm not going to have debates about core values about our project, that I hold, including the right to pseudonymous participation; in which "not outing" is an affront, and I'm not going to lend credibility by participation to a project that I'm increasingly (seven emails overnight from its leader and an unrelated individual from Wikipedia Review to add to that) is nothing more than a platform (despite your own involvement) to give legitimacy to his personal (and pointless) crusade to out English Wikipedia participants with a political leaning that he and most of the world's scientific community and population already don't agree with.Cary Bass demandez 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The "unrelated individual from Wikipedia Review" is actually one of the seven people on Wikiversity who signed onto the Ethics project there. I imagine you didn't recognize the name because his E-Mail name differs from his Wikiversity avatar name. The project leader is WAS 4.250, who (as far as I know) doesn't use E-Mail. He initiated the Ethics project, named it, and manages it. I provide a substantial portion of the academically sourced content, much of which is provided to me through my academic connections with the Utah State University School of Journalism and Communications. Regarding the flurry of overnight E-Mails, I would like to reproduce them as part of the Discussion subpage on the ethics project. Do you have any objection to that, Cary? —Moulton 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.240, I think the key point here is that Cary has raised an issue that we do need to think about... with a community of different wikis, with different norms, how do we reconcile that. How much voice should people have in wikis where they have no activity at all? How do we reconcile the difference in how different wikis get things done? What if that difference impacts people globally? These are all valid questions. Reading too much into exactly who did what to who in a specific instance may not be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WAS, I don't think Cary is the potential bad guy here (not saying that Moulton is, either). BADSITES thankfully was killed on en.wiki, but local projects are sovereign of each other and should make all their own local decisions there. If Moulton's blog is a seen as a problem on wikiversity, it should be brought up there, really. rootology (T) 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It must suck to be him.

You mean after they burn you at the stake? Any "turning over" there would be with a rake.

Ah, I forgot-- when they church actually wielded power, it wasn't quite so ah, indulgent, toward those who flaunted its power. That the right word?

That's very Roman Catholic, indeed. Thus, I can't believe the Randroid "community" came up with any such thing, except as default recognition of an ongoing phenomenon, which they might as well acquiesce to, or else get run over by.

That Jimbo once read a couple of books that're among histories most painful reading does not make the "community" "Randroid".

Just like Michael Servetus in Geneva, was tied to a stake and was burned slowly to death, by Calvin.

They were dark times indeed in those days, let's not derail the thread! Me thinks we need another forum!

That Jimbo once read a couple of books that're among histories most painful reading does not make the "community" "Randroid".

If he didn't fail he wouldn't be accurately copying Mr. Wales' leadership methods.

I love how Cary declares ex cathedra that Moulton's blog is unacceptable, then insists that that decision was made by a community of which he is not a part. What's truly amazing is how he is trying to copy Jimbo's own bankrupt leadership methods, and yet failing miserably at that. It must suck to be him.

Jimbo isn't Randian. Claiming to be Randian is his thing. It is a replacement for something. Not sure what. Don't care to speculate.

I think that is right. Trying to understand Wikipedia in terms of Mr. Wales' dearly held philosophy (if Objectivism, so called, can even be said to be a philosophy) does not seem to be helpful. Now if he said he was profoundly influenced by Lord of the Flies that would be another matter altogether.

The most important thing to say about the character of Ayn Rand is that she lacked the character of Nathaniel Branden.

The most important thing to say about the character of Ayn Rand is that she lacked the character of Nathaniel Branden.