![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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 ![]() |
I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. I disagree, but perhaps we can agree to disagree... A social contract is a set of promises made voluntarily. It has nothing to do with the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation. Covenents and Social Contracts were devised as a sane alternative to Hammurabi's Idiotic Idea. QUOTE 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 saying that the "full headers" of the e-mails in question contained only a reply-to/from address, already available on a WMF site, with no IP address or server routing information whatsoever? Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers? 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. The Greek word martyr means witness. In cyberspace one doesn't have to die to bear witness. And even if they try to kill off one's avatar for having unmitigated gall to bear accurate witness, the act of annihilation is futile, since it's only an Internet avatar. What I posted was a copy of outgoing mail from me to ArbCom. It didn't have any headers on it because copies of outgoing mail have no headers, full stop. QUOTE 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? Do you realize that what was in my userspace was evidence used to convict FeloniousMonk (and also to indict the rest of IDCab). Rosalind Picard has less than zero interest in the fate of FeloniousMonk, a disposable avatar whose name she is entirely unaware of. However, you might bother to ask Ottava Rima what he knows about Don Hopkins or the others who published false and defamatory BLPs on Wikipedia. QUOTE 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. My goals have been published on my talk page for over a year. 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. Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP. Now where have I heard that particular brand of egotism before? That's right, it's the same as the "IDCAB", when they've equated opposing their behavior with being "anti-science". There has never been any scholarship on WP. It is against the rules to engage in scholarship on WP. QUOTE The blame for your experience at WV failing to reach Kohlberg level 5 lies primarily with you and your overblown ego, Moulton. A social contract would involve a little give-and-take, meaning that you occasionally listen to others when they tell you your behavior is inappropriate, and change accordingly. You insisted on doing things your way to the detriment of other editors, so you got tossed, and I didn't see anyone terribly surprised that it happened (only at the way it went down). Frankly, your love for bringing up Kohlberg's model might be a little more convincing if I saw a little evidence you understood any of it. Kohlberg Level Four behavior is, by definition, inappropriate in a community that evolves and advances from Level Four to Level 5. Anankastic Machiavellianism is anathema to Kolhberg Level 5 and higher. They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model). "Think about right and wrong, and one immediately falls into error." —Taoist Proverb "If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind." —Seng-Ts'an I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. 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. 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. It's not that I do not accept the legitimacy of rules. It's that I understand rules to define a class of system known as a "game". In general such rule-driven systems may take on the character of a drama rather than a simple game (like chess). However, rule-driven systems are what they are (and are generally not what most people obliviously imagine them to be). Mathematicians have known for well over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic. QUOTE Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding. The reason I propose to evolve from dysfunctional rule-driven systems to function-driven systems is because function-driven systems are functional. I prefer functional systems to dysfunctional ones. (So did Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Augustine, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Lagrange, Poincare, Einstein, Gandhi, King, von Neumann, Feynman, etc, etc. It's not exactly a new idea.) I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. 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 the 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. 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 GBG has formed a flight of fancy unsupported by solid evidence, sound reasoning, or coherent analysis. However I give him credit for submitting it to scholarly peer review by a subject matter expert on Moulton's mindset. I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy. |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers? You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!) As for the other thing, well... any social contract that doesn't provide a means of grievance-redress, usually in the form of legal restrictions and remedies, isn't really a social contract - it's just an exercise in Utopian folderol production, which on the internet would be absurdly easy for people to game and abuse if actually put into practice. And you'll never get there on any Wikimedia (or related) project - their system is already too easy to game and abuse, and the kind of unanimity-of-purpose required for something like that can't possibly exist in the kind of contentious environment they've created. You might be able to do it on some sort of "ideologically pure" invitation-only site, though... But if I were in your shoes, I'd probably just give up on the internet completely, except for private e-mail, and maybe MP3 downloads. I suppose that's just my opinion... |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!) We blocked his talk page because he posted more real names and their email addresses. Look at the email closely. 5 real names. One of the concerns with Moulton was the posting of real names. He was warned and asked not to. |
Random832 |
![]()
Post
#5
|
meh ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,933 Joined: Member No.: 4,844 ![]() |
You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!) We blocked his talk page because he posted more real names and their email addresses. Look at the email closely. 5 real names. One of the concerns with Moulton was the posting of real names. He was warned and asked not to. I can't find the email - where did he post it? |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
|
Random832 |
![]()
Post
#7
|
meh ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,933 Joined: Member No.: 4,844 ![]() |
I can't find the email - where did he post it? Embeded link, can be found at the top of page ten in Somey's post (the quote from Moulton). Sam Korn, James Forrester, Dan Tobias are all open about their real names (if those are their real names). So is Cla68, as far as I know, though I don't have a link handy to back it up. So if by "5 real names" you meant "5 real names, only one of which was problematic in any sense" (I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username), then - sure. But that's a bit disingenuous. This post has been edited by Random832: |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)... Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention? |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)... Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention? There is a KC (Killer Chihuahua). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |