![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Rootology |
![]() ![]()
Post
#1
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,489 Joined: Member No.: 877 ![]() |
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...=User%3AMoulton
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity..._for_incivility QUOTE 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) |
![]() ![]() |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
The discussion on Wikiversity regarding Jimbo's unprecedented actions there continues to unfold in the Colloquium.
Just as AN/Moulton hopelessly divided the community at WP, Jimbo's unexplained intervention at Wikiversity has similarly deeply divided that community. In the meantime, Ottava Rima has contacted Rosalind Picard and received feedback from her. Regarding her WP BLP, Picard writes, "I can quibble with a few other things here and there but I won't, and besides the bio is so much better now than it was when I was receiving a large number of harassing emails from a man named Don Hopkins." If anyone is curious about those "harassing emails" arising from the false and defamatory content in that BLP, I was on the copy-to list and received them too. I will make them public to anyone who does not wish to remain mindlessly oblivious of the considerable harm caused by IDCab's persistent publication of those demonstrably false and defamatory claims regarding Picard's purported view of Creationism vs. Evolution. |
everyking |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,368 Joined: Member No.: 81 ![]() |
The discussion on Wikiversity regarding Jimbo's unprecedented actions there continues to unfold in the Colloquium. Just as AN/Moulton hopelessly divided the community at WP, Jimbo's unexplained intervention at Wikiversity has similarly deeply divided that community. In the meantime, Ottava Rima has contacted Rosalind Picard and received feedback from her. Regarding her WP BLP, Picard writes, "I can quibble with a few other things here and there but I won't, and besides the bio is so much better now than it was when I was receiving a large number of harassing emails from a man named Don Hopkins." If anyone is curious about those "harassing emails" arising from the false and defamatory content in that BLP, I was on the copy-to list and received them too. I will make them public to anyone who does not wish to remain mindlessly oblivious of the considerable harm caused by IDCab's persistent publication of those demonstrably false and defamatory claims regarding Picard's purported view of Creationism vs. Evolution. Moulton, as improper as Jimbo's action was, it's clear the WV community isn't entirely comfortable with what you were doing. Why don't you just promise to stop doing what they object to and see if they'll let you back in? |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
How to Play Bomis Boyzâ„¢ Bondage and Discipline Games, WMF Style
The discussion on Wikiversity regarding Jimbo's unprecedented actions there continues to unfold in the Colloquium. Just as AN/Moulton hopelessly divided the community at WP, Jimbo's unexplained intervention at Wikiversity has similarly deeply divided that community. In the meantime, Ottava Rima has contacted Rosalind Picard and received feedback from her. Regarding her WP BLP, Picard writes, "I can quibble with a few other things here and there but I won't, and besides the bio is so much better now than it was when I was receiving a large number of harassing emails from a man named Don Hopkins." If anyone is curious about those "harassing emails" arising from the false and defamatory content in that BLP, I was on the copy-to list and received them too. I will make them public to anyone who does not wish to remain mindlessly oblivious of the considerable harm caused by IDCab's persistent publication of those demonstrably false and defamatory claims regarding Picard's purported view of Creationism vs. Evolution. Moulton, as improper as Jimbo's action was, it's clear the WV community isn't entirely comfortable with what you were doing. Why don't you just promise to stop doing what they object to and see if they'll let you back in? What I'm doing that they take vigorous exception to is Bearing Accurate Witness in accordance with Wikiversity Policy on Scholarly Ethics. I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me. Let them do their damage. It's only a Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd Comic Opera. |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to [b]Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me. Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page. At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut? Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight. |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me. Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page. At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut? Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight. They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model). What died was any claim to being an authentic encyclopedia, crafted by authentic scholars with authentic credentials, who defend their scholarship with authentic peer review. |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model). Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle? |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model). Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I tried to explain to Moulton that Kohlberg was a psychologist and not applicable to sociological structures. I then stated that I am a Hobbsian, and that if he wants to deal with me in a sociological way, he will have to change his approach quite a bit. |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model). Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle?I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia. With respect to the E-Mail addresses of the responsible officials and respondents at ArbCom, you will note that they are openly published at Wikipedia. Are you aware of any recipients who have declined to be responsible officials at Wikipedia, and who have elected to hide their e-mail addresses to avoid responsibility? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I tried to explain to Moulton that Kohlberg was a psychologist and not applicable to sociological structures. I then stated that I am a Hobbsian, and that if he wants to deal with me in a sociological way, he will have to change his approach quite a bit. I prefer to deal with you in a scholarly way. If you wish me to treat you in a sociological way, I am prepared to put on my hat as an ethnologist who studies online cultures and the post-modern characters who inhabit cyberspace under imaginative avatar names and costumery. |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him. Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding. |
SB_Johnny |
![]()
Post
#11
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,128 Joined: Member No.: 8,272 ![]() |
I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him. Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding. I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort. But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity. Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-). |
the fieryangel |
![]()
Post
#12
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,990 Joined: From: It's all in your mind anyway... Member No.: 577 ![]() |
I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort. But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity. Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-). Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem. And no, WP is not supposed to be about making "stone soup": it's about writing an encyclopedia. Some people are qualified to write an encyclopedia and some aren't. Unfortunately, on WP, those who are qualified to write an encyclopedia are weeded out of the process because of interpersonal issues such as this. So you get....stone soup....or as Greg K put it, the sausage factory. That might be very nice, but it's certainly not an encyclopedia. |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#13
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort. But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity. Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-). Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem. I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert. |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#14
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort. Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem. But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity. Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-). I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics. |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#15
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort. Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem. But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity. Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-). I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics. Interesting excuse, but you had plenty of time on WV to demonstrate a little bit of your supposed research. Instead, you just beat the same old drum. I could buy that you perhaps are an expert in one of the hard sciences, but you've shown little understanding of even some of the more basic concepts of the humanities disciplines. You don't even seem to grasp a case study's structure and purpose (although I suppose there's the possibility you were just feigning ignorance). |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#16
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort. Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem. But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity. Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-). I could buy that you perhaps are an expert in one of the hard sciences, but you've shown little understanding of even some of the more basic concepts of the humanities disciplines. You don't even seem to grasp a case study's structure and purpose (although I suppose there's the possibility you were just feigning ignorance). If you have a better model, by all means craft a better case study. One has to lead by example. If you find my example wanting, by all means provide a superior example for all of us to learn from. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |