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: