Will no one rid Wikimedia of this meddlesome hypothesis?, Odd Socracy questions Wikiversity's ad hoc Ochlocracy. Options

[Moulton]

How did it come to pass that Jimbo Wales was the one to block Moulton at Wikiversity?

Wikiversity Custodian, SB_Johnny, explains:

As for the whole "how did Jimbo get involved thing", yes, it was a total failure of cojones on our collective parts (on my part especially). But we did not ask him to do something, we certainly did not seek him out, and the reasons he gave were not the ones we thought he was going to give (or at least not the ones we thought we were supposed to have agreed to).

Jimbo Wales, himself, writes:

After discussion with other admins, in which I was requested to personally make this block, I have indef blocked Moulton from this project.

The disparity between these two statements led me to formulate this scientifically crafted pair of hypotheses:

Community-Wide Peer Review of Exceptional Practices

I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:

• H0:Benign AGF (Assume Good Faith) that nothing sinister, nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary has happened here in Wikiversity or in the associated IRC channels.
  
  
• H1:Speculative (and as yet unproven) hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).

H1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are systems scientists, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty. Those here who are actors in a constructed reality soap opera will probably have little or no idea what I'm talking about.

So far, the acknowledged actions of the majority of resident scholars here has reified (rather than refuted) H1. It is still possible for H1 to be falsified, but to the best of my knowledge and awareness, that has not yet happened as of this moment in the remarkable history of Wikiversity.

Moulton 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since then, I have provided multiple additional opportunities for the cojones-challenged custodians of Wikiversity to falsify H1.

See for example, this unblock request and this reminder, posted on SB_Johnny's talk page.

On every occasion, without fail, the Custodians of Wikiversity have reified H1 rather than refuting it by falsifying it.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome hypothesis?

[Ottava]

If you would prefer, I would undo Jimbo's block, state that he doesn't have the power, and indef you myself.

[mikeu]

Since then, I have provided multiple additional opportunities for the cojones-challenged custodians of Wikiversity to falsify H1.

See for example, this unblock request and this reminder, posted on SB_Johnny's talk page.

On every occasion, without fail, the Custodians of Wikiversity have reified H1 rather than refuting it by falsifying it.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome hypothesis?

Here are the fundamentals of why no one cares to address the many concerns that you constantly obsess and rant about: "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are." Not that I'm suggesting that you are right about anything in particular, because I have not even come close to the point where I am willing to discuss anything serious with someone who has been such a big dick.

If you really want to make progress on getting answers to your questions, you might find some useful strategy at Coping with being labeled a dick: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true."

Of course, none of the above has anything specific to do with your block. But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

-mikeu

[Giggy]

If you would prefer, I would undo Jimbo's block, state that he doesn't have the power, and indef you myself.

I think that's a very good idea, which would thus get you into a lot of trouble for being completely logical.

[dtobias]

If you would prefer, I would undo Jimbo's block, state that he doesn't have the power, and indef you myself.

Get Jimbo pissed off at you without causing any actual change to anybody's situation? That's something a good drama monger would love.

----------------
Now playing: Cindy Bullens - Freddy My Love
via FoxyTunes

[Ottava]

I think that's a very good idea, which would thus get you into a lot of trouble for being completely logical.

But if it could shut up Moulton for just a day, wouldn't it be worth it in the end? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

You could usefully ask yourself what being a "dick" consists of. In wikipedianese, it looks like a word used to alienate and tag as a target anyone you don't like.

What is the reason for the choice of a term that describes the person, rather than the content?

[mikeu]

But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

You could usefully ask yourself what being a "dick" consists of. In wikipedianese, it looks like a word used to alienate and tag as a target anyone you don't like.

What is the reason for the choice of a term that describes the person, rather than the content?

The reasons are all in the same link that my other quotes came from...

"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?"

-mikeu

[Ottava]

You could usefully ask yourself what being a "dick" consists of. In wikipedianese, it looks like a word used to alienate and tag as a target anyone you don't like.

What is the reason for the choice of a term that describes the person, rather than the content?

That could be a useful retort if it wasn't clear that Moulton was busy focusing on attacking others, using real names constantly, or using multiple alter egos to play up some kind of fanciful "Po Mo theater" as he loves to call it. We could also add his constantly insulting others in the IRC chat room, his belittling of people, claiming there are conspiracies, falsifying what famous intellectuals have said, or misapplying critical terms to mislead others. There are many more, but I don't think we need to get into that level of detail right now.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

You could usefully ask yourself what being a "dick" consists of. In wikipedianese, it looks like a word used to alienate and tag as a target anyone you don't like.

What is the reason for the choice of a term that describes the person, rather than the content?

The reasons are all in the same link that my other quotes came from...

"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?"

-mikeu

That still fails to explain why you choose to tag the person with a disparaging monosyllable, rather than engage with concepts.

Grunting out "dick", as a placeholder for whatever badness you can imagine, is one of the real indicators of the reality of wikipedia. "Don't be a dick" has all the pretense of a policy, yet it provides no certainty as to what behaviour may attract sanction - ultimately, its a shoddy justification for shutting out communication from the opposing team when the thread of the argument is lost.

You could choose not to use it.

[everyking]

Since then, I have provided multiple additional opportunities for the cojones-challenged custodians of Wikiversity to falsify H1.

See for example, this unblock request and this reminder, posted on SB_Johnny's talk page.

On every occasion, without fail, the Custodians of Wikiversity have reified H1 rather than refuting it by falsifying it.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome hypothesis?

Here are the fundamentals of why no one cares to address the many concerns that you constantly obsess and rant about: "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are." Not that I'm suggesting that you are right about anything in particular, because I have not even come close to the point where I am willing to discuss anything serious with someone who has been such a big dick.

If you really want to make progress on getting answers to your questions, you might find some useful strategy at Coping with being labeled a dick: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true."

Of course, none of the above has anything specific to do with your block. But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

-mikeu

Mike, it's hypocritical to call someone a dick when demanding that they stop behaving that way. You might as well tell someone that violence is not the answer while smashing a chair across his back.

As for Moulton, I am completely uninterested in hearing anything he has to say until he tells us that he has made a reasonable concession in an effort to get unblocked. If you WV people then decide to keep him blocked anyway, I will be a lot more willing to take his complaints seriously.

[Ottava]

Mike, it's hypocritical to call someone a dick when demanding that they stop behaving that way. You might as well tell someone that violence is not the answer while smashing a chair across his back.

I would disagree. Mike's use of the term "dick" is no where near anything that Moulton has done, and the two are far opposite in their approach to this point.

And it isn't hypocritical unless there is a condemnation. Mike offered Moulton the way to get back to the discussion table, which he left.

[mikeu]

But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

You could usefully ask yourself what being a "dick" consists of. In wikipedianese, it looks like a word used to alienate and tag as a target anyone you don't like.

What is the reason for the choice of a term that describes the person, rather than the content?

The reasons are all in the same link that my other quotes came from...

"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?"

-mikeu

That still fails to explain why you choose to tag the person with a disparaging monosyllable, rather than engage with concepts.

Grunting out "dick", as a placeholder for whatever badness you can imagine, is one of the real indicators of the reality of wikipedia. "Don't be a dick" has all the pretense of a policy, yet it provides no certainty as to what behaviour may attract sanction - ultimately, its a shoddy justification for shutting out communication from the opposing team when the thread of the argument is lost.

You could choose not to use it.

I (and a number of others from wv) have spent many hours in the wikiversity irc channel (and/or private chat) talking with Moulton directly and explaining the behaviour that we object to. I find it disingenuous for him to claim that we have failed to communicate this to him clearly. In these private discussions he has repeatedly ignored our concerns, all the while typing kilobytes of nonsense drivel about Po Mo Theater and bondage. He then has the nerve to come crying to a message board about how nobody is answering his questions...

FWIW, I did answer his "H1" in private chat before his first post in this thread. He probably didn't notice the answer because he was too busy being a dick.

-mikeu

[Angela Kennedy]

But, I refuse to discuss the reasons until you stop being such a dick.

You could usefully ask yourself what being a "dick" consists of. In wikipedianese, it looks like a word used to alienate and tag as a target anyone you don't like.

What is the reason for the choice of a term that describes the person, rather than the content?

The reasons are all in the same link that my other quotes came from...

"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?"

-mikeu

Oh Great. speculative psychoanalysis. How very quasi Freudian. We're in the big league of rational debate now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Ottava]

Oh Great. speculative psychoanalysis. How very quasi Freudian. We're in the big league of rational debate now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Quasi Freudian you say? Where is the analysis of Moulton's childhood? His sexuality?

[SB_Johnny]

How did it come to pass that Jimbo Wales was the one to block Moulton at Wikiversity?

Wikiversity Custodian, SB_Johnny, explains:

As for the whole "how did Jimbo get involved thing", yes, it was a total failure of cojones on our collective parts (on my part especially). But we did not ask him to do something, we certainly did not seek him out, and the reasons he gave were not the ones we thought he was going to give (or at least not the ones we thought we were supposed to have agreed to).

Jimbo Wales, himself, writes:

After discussion with other admins, in which I was requested to personally make this block, I have indef blocked Moulton from this project.

The disparity between these two statements led me to formulate this scientifically crafted pair of hypotheses:

Community-Wide Peer Review of Exceptional Practices

I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:

[ .... ]

lmao

One thing you can say about Moulton and Jimbo: they seem to mean well, but whenever they try, they manage to muck it up somehow. The only difference is that Jimbo manages to be appreciated, and usually constructive. Sorry Moulton, but when you propose a "scholarly examination", I tend to think you're just proposing that we just form a cabal of people who agree with Moulton so we can apply body paint to them and picket time's aquare in the nude until someone writes an article in the Village Voice.

I know you really mean well and care about what you care about, but your tactics are the very epitome of counterproductivity.

(edited in the hopes of fixing the quote problem)

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[Angela Kennedy]

Oh Great. speculative psychoanalysis. How very quasi Freudian. We're in the big league of rational debate now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Quasi Freudian you say? Where is the analysis of Moulton's childhood? His sexuality?

The 'unconscious' motivation speculation brings it into the quasi-Freudian realm.

[JohnA]

I've already noted that Moulton prefers to be a dick. I think he's a small child in an adult body who is desperate for attention - any attention will do.

[Ottava]

The 'unconscious' motivation speculation brings it into the quasi-Freudian realm.

Or not. Unless its sexual related unconscious desires.

I've already noted that Moulton prefers to be a dick. I think he's a small child in an adult body who is desperate for attention - any attention will do.

And he's at the perfect place for people who are banned to go for such.

[Moulton]

Experimental Outcome

H0 (the Null Hypothesis) stands unanimously refuted and H1 stands reified by unanimous consent of Wikiversity custodians, and is hereby adopted as the Prevailing Model of Wikiversitan Politics.

H1 is the hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).

Wikiversity is thus self-characterized by its dominant custodians as having succumbed to the corruption that has lamentably overtaken other WMF-sponsored projects.

Wikiversity is thus self-adjudged to have voluntarily and unanimously eschewed and rejected the core principles of Scholarly Ethics.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Ottava]

Moulton, why repeat the same thing without addressing my offer to unblock you and reblock you myself?

[mikeu]

Experimental Outcome

H0 (the Null Hypothesis) stands unanimously refuted and H1 stands reified by unanimous consent of Wikiversity custodians, and is hereby adopted as the Prevailing Model of Wikiversitan Politics.

H1 is the hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).

Wikiversity is thus self-characterized by its dominant custodians as having succumbed to the corruption that has lamentably overtaken other WMF-sponsored projects.

Wikiversity is thus self-adjudged to have voluntarily and unanimously eschewed and rejected the core principles of Scholarly Ethics.

Did you even notice that I answered your question about H1 in private irc last night?

I suppose it would spoil your Po Mo Theatre of the Absurd performance to pause for a moment and listen, instead of endlessly repeating yourself. For someone who claims to want answers, you don't make much of an effort seeking them out.

Do me a favor and stop private messaging me in irc. I have spent _many_ hours in chat listening to your incoherent rants while trying to patiently explain things to you, and all I get in return is grandstanding in pubic forums about how no one has answered you. Stop falsely claiming that no one is responding, when it is really due to your own inattention. And, please, stop being such a dick.

-mikeu

[Moulton]

Experimental Outcome

H0 (the Null Hypothesis) stands unanimously refuted and H1 stands reified by unanimous consent of Wikiversity custodians, and is hereby adopted as the Prevailing Model of Wikiversitan Politics.

H1 is the hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).

Wikiversity is thus self-characterized by its dominant custodians as having succumbed to the corruption that has lamentably overtaken other WMF-sponsored projects.

Wikiversity is thus self-adjudged to have voluntarily and unanimously eschewed and rejected the core principles of Scholarly Ethics.

Did you even notice that I answered your question about H1 in private irc last night?

I suppose it would spoil your Po Mo Theatre of the Absurd performance to pause for a moment and listen, instead of endlessly repeating yourself. For someone who claims to want answers, you don't make much of an effort seeking them out.

Do me a favor and stop private messaging me in irc. I have spent _many_ hours in chat listening to your incoherent rants while trying to patiently explain things to you, and all I get in return is grandstanding in pubic forums about how no one has answered you. Stop falsely claiming that no one is responding, when it is really due to your own inattention. And, please, stop being such a dick.

-mikeu

Here is what I have from IRC...

(05:42:32 PM) Moulton: How do I place an {{unblock}} request if my talk page is locked? I would like to request an unblock for the purpose of dispelling H1, as defined here: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:M...ional_Practices
(05:42:32 PM) User is not logged in
(09/25/2008 07:55:38 AM) Moulton: Posted on SBJ's IM Window....
(07:55:38 AM) mikeu <AUTO-REPLY> : away
(07:55:41 AM) Moulton: (07:53:07 AM) Moulton: Thank you for moving Barsoom Tork's Unblock Request to Moulton's page. Now we await the outcome of The Final Experiment to Test H1.
(07:55:41 AM) Moulton: (07:53:56 AM) Moulton: This is the WV's last best opportunity to absolve itself from being defined by the thesis set forth in H1.
(07:55:41 AM) mikeu <AUTO-REPLY> : away
(07:55:41 AM) mikeu <AUTO-REPLY> : away
(08:47:07 AM) Moulton: (08:45:22 AM) Moulton: (08:43:04 AM) Caprice: "As of 1st September 2008, User:JWSchmidt has posted a lot of material on the page about me (not on the talk page; on the page itself) which is probably intended to be offensive and provocative." . --McCormack 17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) <== "probably intended" is a theory of mind about JWSchmidt's intent. What McCormack should have said is that he was offended and felt the need to respond, without imputing Schmidt's motives. I can't speak for JWS, but it annoys and offends me when others adopt and act on haphazard theories of mind regarding my beliefs, desires, intention, motives, or pretensions of knowledge. To my mind it is arrogant to presume to have an accurate theory of mind about another person without validating they theory by submitting it to a test for falsification. Notice how I have submitted H1 for falsfication. That's how we do science, at least on Mars. Perhaps Earthlings have a different protocol for arriving at the ground truth.
(08:47:07 AM) mikeu <AUTO-REPLY> : away
(09/26/2008 02:08:05 PM) Moulton: Why are you doing Jimbo's dirty work for him? He made the block. Let him do the drudge work to enforce it.
(02:08:36 PM) Moulton: You have better things to do with your valuable time than to do Jimbo's drudge work. Let him hire his own robots.
(02:09:16 PM) mikeu: don't you get it moulton? jimbo barely beat us to it
(02:10:00 PM) Moulton: So are you reifying H1?
(02:10:34 PM) mikeu: you might have had another day or two to work on the project with ottava, but your crap was going to get you blocked real soon by any number of admins
(02:10:56 PM) Moulton: You haven't answered my question. Are you reifying H1?
(02:11:35 PM) mikeu: it is a joke to think that just back jimbo did a block that it would be "harder to unblock you" - no one wants you unblocked
(02:11:56 PM) mikeu: just because
(02:12:00 PM) Moulton: Let me rephrase the question for you. Are you reifying H1?
(02:12:27 PM) mikeu: maybe if stopped your obsesive questions, and listened once in a while, you would learn something
(02:12:45 PM) Moulton: I am trying to learn if there is anyone who cares to falsify H1.
(02:13:47 PM) mikeu: give up your silly H's and pay more attention to how your actions have disrupted the community
(02:13:58 PM) mikeu: you are not welcome to continue doing that
(02:14:35 PM) Moulton: I have no evidence to support that thesis, Mike. I have copious evidence that the community was disrupted by CofA, SofD, KC, CB, and JW.
(02:15:24 PM) Moulton: Can you refute the thesis that the community was not disrupted by the ambassadors from IDCab?
(02:15:24 PM) mikeu: XOFF moulton
(02:16:15 PM) Moulton: We hold these precepts to be discoverable, that all scholars are creative equals, that they are endowed by the architecture of their brains with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are 1) the right to engage in discovery learning by the scientific method and 2) the reciprocal right to remain utterly oblivious by the adoption of inscrutable methods currently unexamined by modern science. To demonstrate these alternatives, dramatic encounters arise, deriving their predictable scripts from the recurring anecdotes of human history. Whenever any form of liminal social drama arises, it is the duty of the scholarly ethnographers to document and analyze it, and to derive new insights into challenge of promoting improved scientific scholarship. <== I accept that you have elected the right to remain oblivious. It's your unalienable right, and I respect it.
(09/27/2008 09:57:31 AM) Moulton: Please take note of http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk...ntleman#Moulton
(10:48:11 AM) mikeu: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=132563
(11:56:44 AM) Moulton: Many responses so far. I am off to the Museum of Science now for the rest of the day. I'll look in on that thread tonight.
(08:56:24 PM) Moulton: (11:57:46 AM) Caprice: Here is what I am interested in today: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20505 <== What a phreaking disaster. Do you see a shred of authentic scholarship there?

So where, exactly, is any answer other than an express reification of H1?

[dtobias]

H0 H0 H0! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Ottava]

So where, exactly, is any answer other than an express reification of H1?

Seems very clear right here: "(02:09:16 PM) mikeu: don't you get it moulton? jimbo barely beat us to it"

Your fate was sealed when you kept throwing out real names and kept insulting people in the chat. You were warned constantly.

[Moulton]

So where, exactly, is any answer other than an express reification of H1?

Seems very clear right here: "(02:09:16 PM) mikeu: don't you get it moulton? jimbo barely beat us to it"

Your fate was sealed when you kept throwing out real names and kept insulting people in the chat. You were warned constantly.

How does that kind of boast refute H1?

Where is the evidence, Jeff?

Where is the public dialogue?

Where is the analysis and reasoning?

Where is the scholarly peer review in accordance with Scholarly Ethics?

Where are the voices of Erkan, Emesee, Hillgentleman, and JWSchmidt in the non-existent public dialogue?

And more to the point, why did Erkan and Emesee abruptly turn in their bits (and SBJ conveniently go on hiatus), thereby each dissociating themselves from the cowardly and corrupt ochlocracy of the remaining WV officials whom Mike alludes to as his ethically-challenged co-conspirators?

[mikeu]

Just to clarify, when I said "I have spent _many_ hours in chat listening to your incoherent rants while trying to patiently explain things to you..." I was refering to the times _before_ the log that you posted. The log is also incomplete, because it does not show how many times you private messaged me after I had told you to stop.

You have had many opportunities to discuss these issues with myself and others. A number of people have spent hours trying to have a dialogue with you, both on wiki and in chat. You have exhausted our patience. Worse, you have misrepresented our many attempts to accomodate you as "lack of communication" like you are sitting there in the dark without a clue as to why this is all happening. You would know the answer if you had been paying attention for the past couple of weeks instead of babbling about the London fetish scene and bondage.

-mikeu

[Random832]

How does that kind of boast refute H1?

Where is the evidence, Jeff?

Where is the public dialogue?

Where is the analysis and reasoning?

Where is the scholarly peer review in accordance with Scholarly Ethics?

Those are beyond the scope of your hypothesis - the core claim is that you would not have been blocked if not for Jimbo.

What sort of thing do you imagine could refute it? If there is no way to refute the "hypothesis" then it's not a valid theory in the first place - it lacks falsifiability.

[Moulton]

Just to clarify, when I said "I have spent _many_ hours in chat listening to your incoherent rants while trying to patiently explain things to you..." I was refering to the times _before_ the log that you posted. The log is also incomplete, because it does not show how many times you private messaged me after I had told you to stop.

That's the only content I have, in my current PM window. (I don't keep logs.) If you have more logs, please post them in their entirety.

You have had many opportunities to discuss these issues with myself and others. A number of people have spent hours trying to have a dialogue with you, both on wiki and in chat. You have exhausted our patience. Worse, you have misrepresented our many attempts to accommodate you as "lack of communication" like you are sitting there in the dark without a clue as to why this is all happening. You would know the answer if you had been paying attention for the past couple of weeks instead of babbling about the London fetish scene and bondage.

-mikeu

Fortunately I am a very patient man, Mike. I may have to wait until my dying day to establish a functional communication channel with you, but I'll keep trying.

How does that kind of boast refute H1?

Where is the evidence, Jeff?

Where is the public dialogue?

Where is the analysis and reasoning?

Where is the scholarly peer review in accordance with Scholarly Ethics?

Those are beyond the scope of your hypothesis - the core claim is that you would not have been blocked if not for Jimbo.

What sort of thing do you imagine could refute it? If there is no way to refute the "hypothesis" then it's not a valid theory in the first place - it lacks falsifiability.

My core claim is that there was no consensus for a block (which is why a few custodians corruptly called in Jimbo).

Of course H1 is refutable (but only if it's false).

There is good evidence there was not unanimous consensus among the WV Custodians. JWS was openly opposed to the block. There is good circumstantial evidence that Erkan and Emesee were not joining in any consensus either. The evidence regarding Hillgentleman and SBJ is harder to evaluate, because they are more inscrutable. H1 asserts that the small subset of custodians in favor of a block (primarily Cormaggio and McCormack, as near as I can tell) went to Jimbo knowing that he could be induced to make the block, whereupon the remaining custodians would be too intimidated to overturn Jimbo.

H1 asserts the remaining admins are indeed too cowed to overturn Jimbo. So two of them (Erkan and Emesee) turned in their bits, and two or three others (Dark Mage, SBJ, possibly Hillgentleman) vacillated between retiring, withdrawing, and/or going on extended break.

The one custodian who had the cojones to speak up (JWS) was inexplicably stripped of his bits and blocked without just cause in a shameful display of bad faith and inept management by SBJ.

If the custodians had any ethical backbone, they would have told Jimbo to go jump in the lake.

H1 asserts they lack the requisite ethical backbone. SBJ admitted as much.

So H1 is reified rather than refuted or falsified.

To falsify it, at least one custodian would have to manifest the cojones to overturn Jimbo.

So far, only Jeff has suggested might consider doing that.

[dtobias]

How does that kind of boast refute H1?

Maybe somebody needs to dump some H2O over your head?


----------------
Now playing: Sheena Easton - When He Shines
via FoxyTunes


This post has been edited by dtobias:

[Lar]

Fortunately I am a very patient man, Mike. I may have to wait until my dying day to establish a functional communication channel with you, but I'll keep trying.

It strikes me as a haphazard theory of mind that what you are trying to do is actually communicate. My hypotheis is that you are not.

Do you have any evidence that you actually are? Make sure that whatever evidence you present is within the terms of our mutually acceptable social contract.

[Moulton]

Title: Do You Really Want To Block Me?
Artist: Gastrin Bombesin
Composer: Culture Club and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? (Culture Club, 1983)

Give me pain
To rephrase my stain
Let me loathe with zeal
I have danced
Inside your eyes
How can snubs be real

Do you really want to snerk me
Do you really want to
Put me down
Precious disses
Words that burn me
Flamers never ask you why
In my heart
The fires burning
Choose my colour
Find a star
Killer pooches always tell me
That's a step
A step too far

Do you really want to block me
Do you really want to
Shut me up
Do you really want to snerk me
Do you really want to
Put me down

Words are many
I have spoken
I could waste ten thousand bytes
Wrapped in sorrow
Words are token
Come inside and snatch my fears
You've been talking
But believe me

If it's true
You do not know
Moulton posts without a reason
He's prepared
To let you crow

If it's bile you want from me
Then take it away
Everything is not what you see
It's Original Spin


CopyClef 2008 Culture Club and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All Wrongs Reversed.

[mikeu]

Actually, it was the aliens on the grassy knoll that conspired against you... Elvis was part of the Cabal to bind and gag you... Delusional conspiracy theories do not make for a sound hypothesis.

Don't flatter yourself. Many of us were so disgusted by the overall incivility that we were tempted to toss it in and leave.

You were going to get blocked. Full stop. It would have happened earlier that day if I hadn't been stuck on a train. It would have happened earlier that week if I hadn't decided to let others waste their time trying to get through to you. It would have happened another time, by someone else, for other reasons that I don't even know of. But, it would have happened. The only reason that it took so long was because of the extreme tolerance and liberal attitude of wv, which you abused.

-mikeu

[everyking]

Actually, it was the aliens on the grassy knoll that conspired against you... Elvis was part of the Cabal to bind and gag you... Delusional conspiracy theories do not make for a sound hypothesis.

Don't flatter yourself. Many of us were so disgusted by the overall incivility that we were tempted to toss it in and leave.

You were going to get blocked. Full stop. It would have happened earlier that day if I hadn't been stuck on a train. It would have happened earlier that week if I hadn't decided to let others waste their time trying to get through to you. It would have happened another time, by someone else, for other reasons that I don't even know of. But, it would have happened. The only reason that it took so long was because of the extreme tolerance and liberal attitude of wv, which you abused.

-mikeu

I have had no luck in attempting to persuade Moulton of the need to make concessions, so I'll ask you: under what specific conditions would you agree to allow Moulton to edit again?

[mikeu]

Actually, it was the aliens on the grassy knoll that conspired against you... Elvis was part of the Cabal to bind and gag you... Delusional conspiracy theories do not make for a sound hypothesis.

Don't flatter yourself. Many of us were so disgusted by the overall incivility that we were tempted to toss it in and leave.

You were going to get blocked. Full stop. It would have happened earlier that day if I hadn't been stuck on a train. It would have happened earlier that week if I hadn't decided to let others waste their time trying to get through to you. It would have happened another time, by someone else, for other reasons that I don't even know of. But, it would have happened. The only reason that it took so long was because of the extreme tolerance and liberal attitude of wv, which you abused.

-mikeu

I have had no luck in attempting to persuade Moulton of the need to make concessions, so I'll ask you: under what specific conditions would you agree to allow Moulton to edit again?

At the moment we are trying to determine the specific conditions under which we would consider unprotecting his talk page. Let's take it one step at a time.

There are also 10 ip addresses that he has used in the past 2 or 3 days that are blocked for between 1 week and 1 month.

Make that 11, as of 2 min. ago.

-mikeu

[Angela Kennedy]

The 'unconscious' motivation speculation brings it into the quasi-Freudian realm.

Or not. Unless its sexual related unconscious desires.

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy:

[Milton Roe]

At the moment we are trying to determine the specific conditions under which we would consider unprotecting his talk page. Let's take it one step at a time.

There are also 10 ip addresses that he has used in the past 2 or 3 days that are blocked for between 1 week and 1 month.

Make that 11, as of 2 min. ago.

-mikeu

Well, obviously your present strategy is not having the intended effect. One of the oldest games on Wikipedia, used very successfully for awhile against Bagley/Wordbomb (who is still banned) was get somebody blocked for any reason or no good reason, then tar them as a sockpuppet when they try to ungag themselves in self-defence. After that, you can safely forget what got them blocked in the first place (and in Bagley's case it's not only been forgotten, but oversighted too so that nobody can check people's bad memories). Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them. Perhaps if they posted more sexually explicit material than WP does? But that's a shifting line, no?

The law enforcement counterpart to all this would be to get somebody into prison in any old way, even on a trumped up charge, then convict them righteously for successful or unsucessful escape attempts. Which you can continue even if the original conviction is overturned.

Paul Newman died this week. He was a fine actor and fine man, and my favorite of his characters was Cool Hand Luke, who kept tweeking the nose of the system by escaping and mocking them, until "the community lost patience" with him, and they shot him. "What we have here," said the guard, "is failure to communicate." Indeed. But such failures are almost always two-ended.

[Moulton]

Actually, it was the aliens on the grassy knoll that conspired against you... Elvis was part of the Cabal to bind and gag you... Delusional conspiracy theories do not make for a sound hypothesis.

Then we agree: Fear, ignorance, and mistrust are not a sustainable foundation for a functional regulatory process.

Don't flatter yourself.

Do you have any evidence to support the curious and evidently pointless thesis that I'm flattering myself?

Many of us were so disgusted by the overall incivility that we were tempted to toss it in and leave.

Many of us were so disgusted we were literally throwing up.

I was heaving buckets of stomach acid from the incivility, as was Erkan. JWS also said, on more than one occasion he was sick to his stomach.

I began heaving buckets of stomach acid when I came home late Friday night, a week ago, to discover that JWS had been unjustly blocked by SBJ.

You were going to get blocked. Full stop. It would have happened earlier that day if I hadn't been stuck on a train. It would have happened earlier that week if I hadn't decided to let others waste their time trying to get through to you. It would have happened another time, by someone else, for other reasons that I don't even know of. But, it would have happened. The only reason that it took so long was because of the extreme tolerance and liberal attitude of wv, which you abused.

-mikeu

Mike, it occurs to me that you and your allied custodians have been preaching and acting from the pulpit of fear, ignorance, and mistrust.

I put it to you, Mike, that fear, ignorance, and mistrust are not a realistic or sustainable foundation for managing an authentic educational enterprise.

Full stop.

[Ottava]

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

[dtobias]

I was heaving buckets of stomach acid from the incivility, as was Erkan. JWS also said, on more than one occasion he was sick to his stomach.

If involving yourself with this stuff is actually making you physically ill, then perhaps it's time to withdraw yourself from it, turn off your computer, and go away from anything to do with it. That's probably what your doctor would advise you.

----------------
Now playing: Dolly Parton - 9 to 5
via FoxyTunes

[Lar]

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

[mikeu]

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

His talk page protection was in response to an edit containing personal information which required oversight.

-mikeu

[Angela Kennedy]

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

You can disagree all you like. I disagree with most of the reams you've written on WR since you've been active. I have openly disagreed with Moulton as well. But I wouldn't call him a 'dick' because resorting to ad hominem- even Wikipedia super-duper 'policy' enabling ad hominem- means one's argument is doomed through faulty logic.

I have no real idea what Moulton's 'crimes' are frankly. I see reams and reams of ad hominem attack (the 'you're a dick you're a dick' 12 inch extended disco version from Mikeu being one of the more recent)- but as to what actually has happened- not clear! Your above statement- sounds good- means little, as it is out of any meaningful context for those of us not of the Wiki way.

This is an occupational hazard of Wikipedia - lines and lines of wikispeak and rhetorical devices full of various logical fallacies on the talk pages- little of substance- very little of rational debate. I've tried to engage in rational debate before on there- all to no avail- because ad hominem prevails on there mostly.

I do know that the idea of a 'Wikiversity', based on my own experiences as an academic on Wikipedia and how I was treated- fills me with concern, not to mention the implications of Jimbo Wales or the WMF producing 'academic' knowledge- knowing what I now know about the set-up, and its place in the larger issue of power and conflict in how knowledge is produced. But, one would hope, if Wikiversity is a community of academics, things would be slightly more convivial- but from this interchange I've witnessed- it seems not.

But my primary concern here was the 'you're a dick' refrain - terrible way to try and construct your adversary- and the 'you secretly enjoy it' speculation- awful. The one thing I do notice- Moulton does NOT appear to be engaging in the same level of ad hominem, at least here on WR.

This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy:

[Moulton]

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

Yes, please.

Let's have a scholarly peer review of that extraordinary hypothesis of mine, namely that Jimbo brought into Wikiversity his Bomis Boyzâ„¢ B&D Fetish Culture.

Is everyone here aware of that thesis?

I was heaving buckets of stomach acid from the incivility, as was Erkan. JWS also said, on more than one occasion he was sick to his stomach.

If involving yourself with this stuff is actually making you physically ill, then perhaps it's time to withdraw yourself from it, turn off your computer, and go away from anything to do with it. That's probably what your doctor would advise you.

What made me physically ill was SBJ's blocking of JWS last Friday night.

Now playing: Dolly Parton - 9 to 5 via FoxyTunes

Precisely so. The final scene of that movie illustrates the B&D Fetishism that Jimbo's Bomis Boyzâ„¢ Culture introjects into Wikimedia. (For the worst of it, see David Shankbone.)

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

His talk page protection was in response to an edit containing personal information which required oversight.

-mikeu

What personal information? You have made that claim, but where is the evidence, analysis, or independent review of your specious claim?

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

You can disagree all you like. I disagree with most of the reams you've written on WR since you've been active. I have openly disagreed with Moulton as well. But I wouldn't call him a 'dick' because resorting to ad hominem- even Wikipedia super-duper 'policy' enabling ad hominem- means one's argument is doomed through faulty logic.

I have no real idea what Moulton's 'crimes' are frankly.

I have no idea either. It occurs to me that the recurring practice is to make a "bad block" and then hope the resulting confusion will yield no consensus to overturn the block. At this point, it takes Jimbo Wales himself to make the controversial block, on the presumption that no one has the cojones to tell Jimbo to go jump in the lake.

[Milton Roe]

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

As I once explained to Brad "NutlessWonder" Patrick, a filed lawsuit itself is a merely a threat, since most are frivolous and will never make it past early pro-forma request for dismissal. A direct threat of a lawsuit is a threat of a threat. Why it makes WP so crazy is not clear to me. In Hollywood they say: "Sue me, baby" and shrug. Wikipedia, like all large organizations, must do the same.

The NLT policy actually started as a fairly natural "request" (later enforced) that people engaged in ACTUAL lawsuits with WMF stop editing WP. It then evolved into a kind of perverted hairtrigger thing wherein anybody even mentioning lawsuits can be banhammered by anybody passing by who sees that they aren't an administrator. Thus, you can now get indef blocked for mentioning the possibility that there are grounds for somebody to make a threat of threat. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Ask how I know. And damn, that's a stupid policy, allowed to exist by asses.

As for the other arguments, of course I accept them myself and will admit them as qualifiers to what I said before. But YOU can't have them and claim the BLP problem is a non-issue, or that sec 230 is always going to protect WP. Are you seriously going to try to explain to me that WP doesn't add any extra notoriety and ease-of-access to information that is already publically available in other ways (since anybody can post the same on their blog or somebody else's blog), or that even when nonpublic info gets posted on WP that you feel yourselves under a terrible MORAL imperitive to take it down? That you cry large, fat tears over people having information on themselves published on WP that they don't want published?

Cause if you are, here's this in advance: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

His talk page protection was in response to an edit containing personal information which required oversight.
-mikeu

And you said: "You can't do that" and he said "I'll do it if I want"? Or was there some level of misunderstanding, as when Bagley didn't understand the rules about how username aliases are more zealously protected on WP than is BLP defamation (many fewer oversights there).

I seem to remember that Moulton thought somebody's actual name was already public knowledge? If it was not, are you accusing him of doing a Brandt style super-sleuth to find it out? And if that is so, why has he not posted and reposted it in any of his own multiple blogs, as Brandt does? If the guy intended "outing-harm," methinks there would be a lot more harm from him out there for you to point to, and not on WP where could oversight it.

So provide me a link, or else admit your case reeks. Jimbo formally blocked Moulton for "incivility." If he had a strong case for a higher crime, he would have used it. So don't BS me.

Tell you what: if I see links of Moulton abusing personal info in his blogs, of a type which you have every reason to think he'd continue on his TALK page if he were unblocked on WP, then I'll admit defeat in this argument, and switch to YOUR side. Fair enough?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Moulton]

Here is what Mike found so egregious he had to oversight it and lock down my talk page.

Wikiversity Follies

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[mikeu]

CODE

17:42        Started talking with Moulton on Monday 09/29/08 05:42:19 PM
    Moulton    Mike, please do not tamper with evidence submitted by an adversarial editor.
    Moulton    You may challenge the evidence of an adversarial editor, but it is a violation of protocol to tamper with it.
21:14    Moulton    And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
    Moulton    And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Moulton    And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
    Moulton    And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
    Moulton    But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
21:19    mikeu    You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
21:49    Moulton    It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
21:51    mikeu    it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
    Moulton    It's from Genesis 2:17.
21:52    Moulton    Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
21:53    mikeu    no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
    Moulton    I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
21:54    mikeu    you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
21:55    Moulton    And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
    Moulton    The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
    mikeu    are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
21:56    Moulton    There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
    Moulton    Do you know what the statistic is?
    mikeu    21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
21:57    Moulton    You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
21:58    mikeu    stop contacting me
    Moulton    The lessons may, at one time, originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
21:59    mikeu    "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

[Jon Awbrey]

CODE

Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________

Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Milton Roe]

CODE

Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________

Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

WP:OR

[Jon Awbrey]

CODE

Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________

Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

WP:OR

Thou Shalt Surely Die.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Moulton]

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

Mike, an excellent way to get to know me is to interfere with the learning processes underway in these interlocking venues of cyberspace.

Did you expect me to roll over and play dead when you shot me down with your JimboBlaster Blocking Pistol?

You may think we are playing Cowboys and Indians or Cops and Robbers, but if so, you are sadly mistaken.

If you engage me by disrupting a scholarly conversation with other scholars, you can surely expect me to take exception to that practice.

Nor am I a fetish object for you to toy with. If you want to play bondage and discipline games, obtain consent from those whom you propose to bind and gag. I may not be as talented as Houdini, but if you put a straitjacket on me, you can expect me to wriggle out of it and resume functioning as an educator as long as there remains one person on this planet who cares to learn how to solve problems with their brains instead of with the unbecoming methods of Machiavelli.

[Angela Kennedy]

CODE

17:42        Started talking with Moulton on Monday 09/29/08 05:42:19 PM
    Moulton    Mike, please do not tamper with evidence submitted by an adversarial editor.
    Moulton    You may challenge the evidence of an adversarial editor, but it is a violation of protocol to tamper with it.
21:14    Moulton    And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
    Moulton    And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Moulton    And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
    Moulton    And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
    Moulton    But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
21:19    mikeu    You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
21:49    Moulton    It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
21:51    mikeu    it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
    Moulton    It's from Genesis 2:17.
21:52    Moulton    Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
21:53    mikeu    no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
    Moulton    I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
21:54    mikeu    you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
21:55    Moulton    And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
    Moulton    The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
    mikeu    are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
21:56    Moulton    There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
    Moulton    Do you know what the statistic is?
    mikeu    21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
21:57    Moulton    You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
21:58    mikeu    stop contacting me
    Moulton    The lessons may, at one time, originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
21:59    mikeu    "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

In what context was the phrase "thou shalt surely die" used?

[Moulton]

Mike Umbricht (in concert with Emesee and Ottava Rima) has again blocked 260,000 IPs in Greater Boston...

range block log

User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a decision to delete. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by User:Emesee and User:Ottava_Rima per the decision at the WV:RFD. This edit waring continued for nearly one hour and culminated in the range blocks listed below. The range blocks are wider than what they needed to be to, and will need to be narrowed if we decide to continue the blocks after the 24 hours expires. This range blocking is a rather extreme response, but the anon edits were causing disruption and IMO needed to be stopped. Please comment below. --mikeu talk 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

141.154.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Emesee 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone find out a way to prevent subpage creation off of a certain user name? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

68.162.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

68.163.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

68.160.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These ip ranges have been blocked for excessive attempts by a user to evade an existing block. Any attempts to recreate the deleted pages may be blanked, rolled back or reverted by anyone, or deleted by a custodian. We should discuss a more permanent arrangement to prevent this abuse, disruption and harassment from continuing before these blocks expire. --mikeu talk 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• See comments posted at Moulton Lava. —Moulton 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• In addition to activity from the above ips, there are also other incidents that we might want to consider in this discussion. First, there is Moulton 2DFS (now indef blocked) who has made edits that required oversight. Additionally, there were other anon ips, outside the ranges listed above, that engaged in an edit war over Moulton's edits. One anon has been removing the edits, and at least one other has been reinserting them. By continuing to allow one blocked user to edit anonymously we are now getting edit wars that are spreading. This has even disrupted our attempts to follow policy, as indicated by the need to protect pages. --mikeu talk 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• Block the range for a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
  
• I'm relatively certain that Moulton 2DFS is completely unrelated, though it's likely that the person has been reading "Wikipedia Review". We'll look into it with the CU tools when we have them. 71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the user has had prior encounters with Moulton. I strongly advise against any further rangeblocks until the office has confirmed Emesee's identity, because the IP ranges involved are used in a densely populated region with a large number of colleges and universities. The most important advantage of having the CU tools is to ensure that we are accurate in our blocking, and hopefully we'll have them within the next day or two. --SB_Johnny talk 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• See also: contribs from 71.202.65.147 at beta. My main concern is that the edit wars are attracting more participants. Should a narrower range block be put in place for one more day when the 24 hours expires to give some time to do a CU? --mikeu talk 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• ...

But the part that perplexes me is why the custodians, led by Sebmol, would go on a rampage destroying pages of literature on Wikiversity...

# 04:23, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Caprice" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:23, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:22, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:22, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Montana Mouse" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:15, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Albatross" ‎ (Nonsense, spam or vandalism)
# 04:15, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Albatross" ‎ (Nonsense, spam or vandalism)

Why would anyone want to destroy literature on Wikiversity?

That makes no sense to me.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Moulton]

71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the user has had prior encounters with Moulton.

Well, la de da. Our mystery gumshoe from Pleasanton CA turns out to be none other than FeloniousMonk himself. Evidently he recently switched from PacBell DSL out of Pleasanton to Comcast. Who else would leave his Google Toolbar monitoring my web pages, both at his office and at home?

[Piperdown]

CODE

17:42        Started talking with Moulton on Monday 09/29/08 05:42:19 PM
    Moulton    Mike, please do not tamper with evidence submitted by an adversarial editor.
    Moulton    You may challenge the evidence of an adversarial editor, but it is a violation of protocol to tamper with it.
21:14    Moulton    And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
    Moulton    And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Moulton    And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
    Moulton    And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
    Moulton    But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
21:19    mikeu    You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
21:49    Moulton    It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
21:51    mikeu    it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
    Moulton    It's from Genesis 2:17.
21:52    Moulton    Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
21:53    mikeu    no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
    Moulton    I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
21:54    mikeu    you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
21:55    Moulton    And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
    Moulton    The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
    mikeu    are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
21:56    Moulton    There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
    Moulton    Do you know what the statistic is?
    mikeu    21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
21:57    Moulton    You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
21:58    mikeu    stop contacting me
    Moulton    The lessons may, at one time, originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
21:59    mikeu    "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

In what context was the phrase "thou shalt surely die" used?

It was once used in a "Annoying Baptist Knocking on My Door and Telling Me I'm Going to Burn in Hell" context to me.

Something about whether I accepted the "give 10% of your cash to us and you get into heaven, the other flavours of Jesus you get elsewhere are wrong!" line, then I would never die....as these folks consider their souls immortal if you get on the list. Otherwise you "surely die" instead of just die. Soul-wise. Meanwhile some of the most wonderful people in the world that I know that are Jewish, Atheist, Catholic-Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologists (not really, but that's there just for WP lol), etc are doomed to burn in eternal fires despite making this world a better place before they left it. Well fuck that god and his meatpuppets for that.

But then can you really take those documents seriously after 2000 years of being Babelfished back and forth by scholars with their balls in a royal vice or in need of cash.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Moulton]

A better question is this one:

What concepts of theology are insightful enough to advance to scientific theory?

What concepts of theology are both insightful enough to advance to theory and rigorously provable enough to make it all the way to theorem?

There is something in that Genesis 2 story with the talking snake that makes it all the way to scientific theory, and even to mathematical theorem.

Can you tease out the part that is now mathematically provable?

Note: You will need some college math. Not a lot of math, but some college math.

[Moulton]

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

Mike, an excellent way to get to know me is to interfere with the learning processes underway in these interlocking venues of cyberspace.

Did you expect me to roll over and play dead when you shot me down with your JimboBlaster Blocking Pistol?

You may think we are playing Cowboys and Indians or Cops and Robbers, but if so, you are sadly mistaken.

If you engage me by disrupting a scholarly conversation with other scholars, you can surely expect me to take exception to that practice.

Nor am I a fetish object for you to toy with. If you want to play bondage and discipline games, obtain consent from those whom you propose to bind and gag. I may not be as talented as Houdini, but if you put a straitjacket on me, you can expect me to wriggle out of it and resume functioning as an educator as long as there remains one person on this planet who cares to learn how to solve problems with their brains instead of with the unbecoming methods of Machiavelli.

Mike, please take note of this principle, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:

Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the [WMF] privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the [Wikikpedia Arbitration] Committee.

It occurs to, Mike, me that your "determination" in which you assumed the role of arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner, exceeded both your authority and the protocols of due process.

I therefore urge you to stand down from recent actions and submit the case to fair and impartial community review, including the right of the accused to defend themselves, examine the evidence against them, and to cross-examine any witnesses who have the courage and the integrity to withstand academic peer review.

You have had nearly two weeks to argue your case, and you have failed to prove your claims or to secure a fair determination of the propriety of your actions.

Moreover, your exhortation, "Do not contact me again," is utterly incompatible with the notion of responsibility and accountability in the exercise of unwarranted political power over other scholars who are acting in good faith.

Discriminatory actions such as yours jeopardize the status of WMF as a publicly funded 501(c)(3) non-profit chartered as an educational enterprise.

[Lar]

Mike, please take note of this principle, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:

Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the [WMF] privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the [Wikikpedia Arbitration] Committee.

It occurs to, Mike, me that your "determination" in which you assumed the role of arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner, exceeded both your authority and the protocols of due process.

I do not think that principle means what you think it means. Nor does the privacy policy apply when deciding about whether to remove information that "outs" other editors against their wishes. (for the record your wikiversity block was sound, even if it is not true that "the forms were obeyed"... )

And when exactly will you internalise and move on about "due process"? WMF websites are not a government. Get over it.

[Moulton]

Mike, please take note of this principle, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:

Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the [WMF] privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the [Wikikpedia Arbitration] Committee.

It occurs to, Mike, me that your "determination" in which you assumed the role of arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner, exceeded both your authority and the protocols of due process.

I do not think that principle means what you think it means. Nor does the privacy policy apply when deciding about whether to remove information that "outs" other editors against their wishes. (for the record your wikiversity block was sound, even if it is not true that "the forms were obeyed"... )

And when exactly will you internalise and move on about "due process"? WMF websites are not a government. Get over it.

I get that WMF-sponsored projects are not representative instances of a functional governance structure, Lar.

Now, in my capacity as a student of cyberspace cultures and communities, I'm discovering what the WMF-funded projects really are, given that they clearly are not what I had initially imagined them to be.