User talk:Moulton/Caprice

Source: User_talk:Caprice @ Wikiversity

Proposal of Jeffrey M. Peters

I've given you a proposal before but you balked. Let me give you one more straight forward:

I would unblock you (on this name). If you mention anyone's real life name, I will block you for 24 hours and disable your talk page access. If you bring up your old blocks, complain about Wikipedia, etc. I will block you for 24 hours but not disable your talk page access. If you sock during any of those 24 hour block periods then you will be indeffed once again. This probation will last for at least a year.

Would you be able to handle that? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? —Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone agree to that? I mean unless they were lying? "and if you complain about Wikipedia again you'll get sent to your room!" I mean honestly, what would you think of someone who didn't find this both insulting and demeaning? And what does he even get out of it - I don't even see how the block hurts him? 217.28.5.247 22:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, I have no concerns with keeping you indefinitely blocked. Those are my conditions and they will not budge. As long as those conditions are not agreed upon, I can never accept your unblock. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with someone else. Anyway, if you have any friends or relatives off of Wikimedia sites then try showing them your offer above and see what they think of it. I just can't imagine what would drive you to suggest it. That's all for me on this anway; have fun. 217.28.5.247 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Ottava

Ottava, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to accept my deal, then that is your choice and your choice causes Plourde to suffer. I could have offered you no deal. If you are a starving man and someone offers you day old bread, do you whine about it being stale or do you eat it and be greatful that is what you get? Beggars can't be choosers. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to negotiate a mutually agreeable social contract that would restore this site to a collegial and congenial learning community, I am ready to discuss it when you are. But please understand that anankastic conditionals are an inappropriate method of arriving at a peaceable arrangement among collaborating scholars. Barry Kort 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets be Hobbesian. You give up your right to kill people and that right goes to the Leviathan, i.e. the government, i.e. right now me. I then protect you from other people's right to kill you. Switch you "killing people" with using real names and bringing up old fights, and my keeping others from "killing you" as blocking you or attacking you for past things. That is a social contract. Can you agree to those terms or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, you silly goose. Go look at the avatar of Caprice The Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel. The mob is supposed to cast out Caprice. It's right there in Exodus. Have you not discussed the Azazel Story with Geoff? We are re-enacting that very story even as we speak. --Barry Kort 02:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to abide by the terms of my social contract that is to be established in order to end this civil war and based on mutually protection? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you amenable to negotiating a mutually agreeable social contract, suitable for a respectable and responsible democratic learning community? Barry Kort 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I put forth the terms of the only contract I am willing to offer as the Leviathan/Commonwealth in this situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As the Leviathan, you are proposing to protect Moulton from his would-be oppressors. But thou art Moulton's oppressor, Ottava. And that means you are running a lousy Protection Racket. Don't you consider it a tad inappropriate for you to convert your position of trust and authority here into a commonplace protection racket? --Montana Mouse 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you comparing one of the greatest political works of all time with the Italian Mafia? I have stated nothing more than what is in the work, and it is the one that created the original social contract. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Montana Mouse was comparing you, Ottava Rima, to a common thug. Gastrin Bombesin 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Response from Abd

Moulton, you have demonstrated that this community cannot trust you to restrain yourself, with [1], which has unfortunately been revision-deleted, at least the edit summary isn't visible. I'd personally prefer that it be visible, but there are the rights of another user to consider. It's not that this edit was so totally extreme, but it was outside what could be allowed here, until and unless the community develops different policy about "outing" editors, i.e., referring to them by their real name, and I highly doubt that you expected anything different. If you were participating here, you would be perfectly welcome to help develop, say, a policy that requires administrators or even all editors to use or show real names. The argument that this is essential to an academic community has some merit. But this is also a wiki and a community, which means that local policy is developed by consensus. There is, as yet, no consensus requiring real names or allowing the exposure of them, and it is clear that there is a present consensus that "outing" can result in blocks, particularly if not innocent. I.e., you could call me by one of my real names, which are easily known, and you wouldn't be dinged for it unless I protested and you insisted. But another user, in this case, protested and you did continue to insist, being, apparently, deliberately confrontational and provocative. There were several administrators working to see if we could negotiate some settlement, some agreement, that would allow Wikiversity to enjoy and benefit from your extensive experience and wisdom, and I mean that. But it seems you are not willing to cooperate as necessary, to restrain yourself even temporarily.

You are under no obligation to agree to anything. Ottava's offer was not the only possibility, he had the right to make his offer, though, and the right to make his conditions as narrow as he liked, just as you had the right to decline to accept. His making an offer does not make him into your "oppressor."

You have no intrinsic moral obligation or contractual obligation to refrain from socking, to honor the block here. But neither does this community have any obligation to keep your edits or to respect any right for you to edit here. If you are willing to deal with the rest of us as collaborative peers, I, for one, am willing to deal with you as such, and would encourage others to do so. But I don't see you being willing; that's unfortunate. You could change this if you want to, but I'm not asking any more. You know how to contact me, and you are always welcome to do so. I will see what I can to do develop cooperation between Wikiversity and NetKnowledge.org. Can you suggest any resolution here that doesn't continue the "battle," but leads to some consensus, about what's important?

I do not know what precautions Diego took to confirm that he was creating an account for you, and not for some troll or straw puppet. On the thin chance that it wasn't you trolling for outrage, again, let me know off-wiki, preferably by WR PM. I can't necessarily trust that any of this was actually you.... --Abd 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)