Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Bureaucracy _ Will no one rid Wikimedia of this meddlesome hypothesis?
Posted by: Moulton
How did it come to pass that Jimbo Wales was the one to block Moulton at Wikiversity?
Wikiversity Custodian, SB_Johnny, explains:
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 17th September 2008, 8:54pm) 
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, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Block_of_Moulton_for_incivility:
QUOTE(Jimbo Wales on Wikiversity Colloquium)
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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Community-Wide_Peer_Review_of_Exceptional_Practices this scientifically crafted pair of hypotheses:
QUOTE(Moulton's Wikiversity Talk Page)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Community-Wide_Peer_Review_of_Exceptional_Practices
I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:
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.
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&oldid=328783 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show will probably have little or no idea what I'm talking about.
- 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).
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.
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&oldid=328783 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, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Unblock_Request and http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=338420#Please_falsify_H1, 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?
Posted by: Ottava
If you would prefer, I would undo Jimbo's block, state that he doesn't have the power, and indef you myself.
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:12am)
Since then, I have provided multiple additional opportunities for the cojones-challenged custodians of Wikiversity to falsify H1.
See for example, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Unblock_Request and http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=338420#Please_falsify_H1, 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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick#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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick#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
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:56pm)
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.
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:56am)
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: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/cindy+bullens/track/freddy+my+love
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(Giggy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 2:58pm)
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?
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:47pm)
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?
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:35am)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:47pm)
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
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:35pm)
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.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 4:49pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:35am)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:47pm)
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.
Posted by: everyking
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:47pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:12am)
Since then, I have provided multiple additional opportunities for the cojones-challenged custodians of Wikiversity to falsify H1.
See for example, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Unblock_Request and http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=338420#Please_falsify_H1, 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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick#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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick#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.
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th September 2008, 5:01pm)
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.
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 12:47pm)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 4:49pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:35am)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:47pm)
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
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 4:49pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:35am)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 3:47pm)
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
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 6:02pm)
Oh Great. speculative psychoanalysis. How very quasi Freudian. We're in the big league of rational debate now
Quasi Freudian you say? Where is the analysis of Moulton's childhood? His sexuality?
Posted by: SB_Johnny
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:12am)
How did it come to pass that Jimbo Wales was the one to block Moulton at Wikiversity?
Wikiversity Custodian, SB_Johnny, explains:
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 17th September 2008, 8:54pm)
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, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Block_of_Moulton_for_incivility:
QUOTE(Jimbo Wales on Wikiversity Colloquium)
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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Community-Wide_Peer_Review_of_Exceptional_Practices this scientifically crafted pair of hypotheses:
QUOTE(Moulton's Wikiversity Talk Page)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#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)
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 27th September 2008, 7:21pm)
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 6:02pm)
Oh Great. speculative psychoanalysis. How very quasi Freudian. We're in the big league of rational debate now
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.
Posted by: JohnA
I've http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=70&t=19437&hl=dick&view=findpost&p=119536 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.
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:17pm)
The 'unconscious' motivation speculation brings it into the quasi-Freudian realm.
Or not. Unless its sexual related unconscious desires.
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sat 27th September 2008, 10:57pm)
I've http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=70&t=19437&hl=dick&view=findpost&p=119536 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.
Posted by: 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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Scholarly_ethics.
Posted by: Ottava
Moulton, why repeat the same thing without addressing my offer to unblock you and reblock you myself?
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 27th September 2008, 8:48pm)
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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity: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
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 10:14pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 27th September 2008, 8:48pm)
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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Scholarly_ethics.
Did you even notice that I answered your question about H1 in private irc last night?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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Scholarly_ethics.
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...
QUOTE(Mike Umbricht in 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:Moulton#Community-Wide_Peer_Review_of_Exceptional_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:Hillgentleman#Moulton
(10:48:11 AM) mikeu: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20505&view=findpost&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?
(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:Hillgentleman#Moulton
(10:48:11 AM) mikeu: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20505&view=findpost&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?
Posted by: dtobias
H0 H0 H0! 
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 2:22am)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:04pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 2:22am)
So where, exactly, is any answer other than an express reification of H1?
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?
Posted by: 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
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 3:45am)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:48pm)
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.
QUOTE(Mike Umbricht)
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
-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.
QUOTE(Random832 @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:52pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 3:45am)
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.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?
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.
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:45pm)
How does that kind of boast refute H1?
Maybe somebody needs to dump some H2O over your head?
----------------
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/sheena+easton/track/when+he+shines
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 12:26am)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
Title: Do You Really Want To Block Me?
Artist: http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/gastrin.html
Composer: Culture Club and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: http://www.feelingnostalgic.com/midi_files/doyoureallywanttohurt.mid (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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_Club and http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/.
http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?128@@.1de35bdb. All Wrongs Reversed.
Posted by: 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
Posted by: everyking
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:32am)
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?
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 28th September 2008, 1:47am)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:32am)
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
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 28th September 2008, 12:53am)
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:17pm)
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.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sat 27th September 2008, 11:04pm)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sun 28th September 2008, 1:32am)
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.
QUOTE(Mike Umbricht)
Don't flatter yourself.
Do you have any evidence to support the curious and evidently pointless thesis that I'm flattering myself?
QUOTE(Mike Umbricht)
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.
QUOTE(Mike Umbricht)
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
-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.
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:37am)
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.
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 7:13am)
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: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/dolly+parton/track/9+to+5
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:44am)
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.
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 28th September 2008, 10:05am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:44am)
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
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 28th September 2008, 2:24pm)
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:37am)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 28th September 2008, 9:24am)
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:37am)
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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20356&st=50&p=130917&#entry130917?
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 28th September 2008, 9:45am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th September 2008, 7:13am)
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.
QUOTE(Dan Tobias)
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/dolly+parton/track/9+to+5 via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
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.)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sun 28th September 2008, 10:50am)
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 28th September 2008, 10:05am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:44am)
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
What personal information? You have made that claim, but where is the evidence, analysis, or independent review of your specious claim?
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 28th September 2008, 12:15pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 28th September 2008, 2:24pm)
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:37am)
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.
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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Scholarly_Peer_Review_of_Managerial_Practices_Demonstrated_in_the_singular_contributions_of_Jimbo_Wales, on the presumption that no one has the cojones to tell Jimbo to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 28th September 2008, 7:05am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th September 2008, 6:44am)
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.
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:
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(mikeu @ Sun 28th September 2008, 7:50am)
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?
Posted by: Moulton
Here is what Mike found so egregious he had to oversight it and lock down my talk page.
http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/wikiversity-follies.html
Posted by: mikeu
QUOTE
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
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
CODE
Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________
Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal
Jon
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 29th September 2008, 7:20pm)
CODE
Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________
Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal
Jon
WP:OR
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 29th September 2008, 10:39pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 29th September 2008, 7:20pm)
CODE
Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________
Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal
Jon
WP:OR
Thou Shalt Surely Die.
Jon
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(mikeu @ Mon 29th September 2008, 10:10pm)
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
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.
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
QUOTE(mikeu @ Tue 30th September 2008, 3:10am)
QUOTE
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?
Posted by: Moulton
Mike Umbricht (in concert with Emesee and Ottava Rima) has again blocked 260,000 IPs in Greater Boston...
QUOTE(Wikiversity)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians#range_block_log
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=342396&oldid=341772. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Emesee and http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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. --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=342396&oldid=341772. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Emesee and http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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. --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- See http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/. —http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User: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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moulton_2DFS (now http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMoulton_2DFS) who has made edits that required http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians&diff=prev&oldid=342128. Additionally, there were other anon ips, outside the ranges listed above, that engaged in an edit war over Moulton's edits. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 has been removing the edits, and at least http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.93.25.195 has been reinserting them. By continuing to allow http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 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 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=340187&oldid=340186 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_talk:Respect_people&diff=prev&oldid=341533. --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Block the range for a year. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm relatively certain that http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/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. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 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. --http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:SB_Johnny http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- See also: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147. 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? --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...
But the part that perplexes me is why the custodians, led by Sebmol, would go on a rampage http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Sebmol...
QUOTE(Sebmol destroys literature on Wikiversity)
# 04:23, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:ajC5jj2XzWoJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:QR7neDPmzcYJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:4oGEpffZHM0J:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:e-k48MYsGnoJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(SB_Johnny's Observation)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 has had prior encounters with Moulton.
Well, la de da. Our http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/macys.log.html turns out to be none other than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=next&oldid=242017618 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?
Posted by: Piperdown
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Tue 30th September 2008, 11:30am)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Tue 30th September 2008, 3:10am)
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 29th September 2008, 10:56pm)
QUOTE(mikeu @ Mon 29th September 2008, 10:10pm)
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.Do not contact me again.
-mikeu
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision#Breaches_of_the_privacy_policy, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:
QUOTE(Wikipedia Arbitration Committee)
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 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=342641&oldid=334304 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.
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 5th October 2008, 11:51pm)
Mike, please take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision#Breaches_of_the_privacy_policy, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:
QUOTE(Wikipedia Arbitration Committee)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 6th October 2008, 1:00am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 5th October 2008, 11:51pm)
Mike, please take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision#Breaches_of_the_privacy_policy, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:
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"... )QUOTE(Wikipedia Arbitration Committee)
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.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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 6th October 2008, 1:07am)
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.
This is just like that climactic scene in the movie Candy where Candy realizes that the "trusted member" belongs to her Daddy.
Jon
Posted by: Moulton
http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/foundations-of-ethics/3iyoslgwsp412/10#H7-An-Example-Social-Contract
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 6th October 2008, 1:12am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 6th October 2008, 1:07am)
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.
This is just like that climactic scene in the movie Candy where Candy realizes that the "trusted member" belongs to her Daddy.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.
Jon
Isn't there a scene (or perhaps only a passage in the book) where the Buddha is covered in muck and mire?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 6th October 2008, 6:49am)
Isn't there a scene (or perhaps only a passage in the book) where the Buddha is covered in muck and mire?
Do Muck And Mire Have The Buddha Nature?
Jon
Posted by: Dzonatas
Something has occurred lately where WR admins feel it is ok for them to bring up case studies about anybody, but Moulton and others were told no they can't make case studies. It defeats the purpose why Moulton was blocked!
At first I was worried that they really felt Moulton created attack pages, but they have been doing what Moulton has done.
chaos happens
Posted by: Moulton
Today, Darklama, acting on his own, http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 User:Moulton on Wikiversity.
Note that this is at best a symbolic gesture, since the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&page=User%3AMoulton%40global is still in effect.
QUOTE(James Neill takes note)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Darklama#Moulton_unblock
I'm just noting that you've locally unblocked http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Log/block + http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Block/Moulton "06:17, 17 July 2010 Darklama (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Moulton (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Not needed with http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&page=User%3AMoulton%40global in place)". Given that the previous WV block was based on a Community Review (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Moulton%27s_block), I think it would be desirable to have a (consolidated) community discussion somewhere about unblocking. -- http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jtneill - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtneill - c 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just noting that you've locally unblocked http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Log/block + http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Block/Moulton "06:17, 17 July 2010 Darklama (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Moulton (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Not needed with http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&page=User%3AMoulton%40global in place)". Given that the previous WV block was based on a Community Review (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Moulton%27s_block), I think it would be desirable to have a (consolidated) community discussion somewhere about unblocking. -- http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jtneill - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtneill - c 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If and when there is a consolidated community discussion about blocking and unblocking, I hope the scholars at Wikiversity will conscientiously consider the analysis of http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/the-governance-model-of-wikipedia/3iyoslgwsp412/27# on the subject.
Posted by: ulsterman
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 17th July 2010, 12:14am)
If and when there is a consolidated community discussion about blocking and unblocking, I hope the scholars at Wikiversity will conscientiously consider the analysis of http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/the-governance-model-of-wikipedia/3iyoslgwsp412/27# on the subject.
In what sense is this a peer-reviewed essay? Nobody seems to have commented on it yet. I rush to add that it is a very good essay. Incidentally, the ability of WV editors to have a sensible discussion wil be a good test of whether WV can work for its intended purpose.
Posted by: SB_Johnny
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 27th September 2008, 2:29pm)
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.
Funny to see this thread revived.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sat 17th July 2010, 12:32pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 17th July 2010, 12:14am)
If and when there is a consolidated community discussion about blocking and unblocking, I hope the scholars at Wikiversity will conscientiously consider the analysis of http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/the-governance-model-of-wikipedia/3iyoslgwsp412/27# on the subject.
In what sense is this a peer-reviewed essay? Nobody seems to have commented on it yet. I rush to add that it is a very good essay. Incidentally, the ability of WV editors to have a sensible discussion wil be a good test of whether WV can work for its intended purpose.Did you click through (at the bottom) to the original P2P.Org site where the essay originally appeared?
Posted by: ulsterman
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 18th July 2010, 12:50am)
Did you click through (at the bottom) to the original P2P.Org site where the essay originally appeared?
No. It might have been helpful to post that link instead of (or at least as well as) the one you gave. So I see there have been two comments on it. That's not exactly the same as my idea of a peer review. I envision people with some expertise and qualifications in a subject refereeing a paper, namely pointing out any mistakes or imperfections then saying whether it's worth publishing. I have no idea of the qualifications of those who commented, but it is clear that they were not trying to say whether or not it should be published.
I stress again that it is a good essay, and had it been sent to me for peer review I would have given it a thumbs up. I'm just querying your use of the term.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 18th July 2010, 9:35am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 18th July 2010, 12:50am)
Did you click through (at the bottom) to the original P2P.Org site where the essay originally appeared?
No. It might have been helpful to post that link instead of (or at least as well as) the one you gave. So I see there have been two comments on it. That's not exactly the same as my idea of a peer review. I envision people with some expertise and qualifications in a subject refereeing a paper, namely pointing out any mistakes or imperfections then saying whether it's worth publishing. I have no idea of the qualifications of those who commented, but it is clear that they were not trying to say whether or not it should be published.Did you read http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/banning-the-wikipedia-bans-as-a-governance-tool/2008/11/21, the editor/publisher of P2P.Org, who decided to elevate and republish my add-on commentary as a featured essay on the P2P.Org site? Here it is, again...
QUOTE(Michel Bauwens)http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/banning-the-wikipedia-bans-as-a-governance-tool/2008/11/21
This http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-it-time-to-go-beyond-wikipedia/2008/11/11#comment-333459 is worth upgrading to a full entry. It details another negative aspect of current Wikipedia governance: the practice of indiscriminate banning without due process.
Michel Bauwens, 21st November 2008
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 18th July 2010, 9:35am)
I stress again that it is a good essay, and had it been sent to me for peer review I would have given it a thumbs up. I'm just querying your use of the term.
Are you satisfied that the editorial staff at P2P.Org (headed up by Michael Bauwens), culled that essay from the add-on comments to an earlier article, and on his own initiative, promoted it to a featured essay. I had not submitted it to anyone for peer review. For all I know, there doesn't not yet exist a recognized body of subject-matter experts who write on the subject of Wikipedia governance. Perhaps P2P.Org will someday become that recognized body of serious scholars.
Posted by: Abd
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 4th August 2010, 7:31am)
recognized[/i] body of subject-matter experts who write on the subject of Wikipedia governance. Perhaps P2P.Org will someday become that recognized body of serious scholars.
Well, I don't know if it meets your standards, but Piotrus, a sociologist and Wikipedia administrator, has published one article under peer review, and I may have seen a draft of a second.Then they desysopped and blocked him. For ??? It was quite thin, and there was every sign he was trying strongly to act fairly and properly. But he did discuss Wikipedia, are you ready for this, it's shocking!
Off-Wiki! In a private mailing list!
Which was hacked by .... ??? .... ArbComm didn't care about niceties like "illegal evidence," and "privacy," they pounced on it like cat on a mouse.
I think his understanding is a little deeper now. He just gave me a purple barnstar.... Nice touch.
Posted by: Moulton
Yes, Jimbo and his sycophants aren't too thrilled with analytical studies of the design concepts of Wikipedia. You just can't speak the truth to power over there and expect to get away with it.
Posted by: Abd
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 4th August 2010, 8:05pm)
Yes, Jimbo and his sycophants aren't too thrilled with analytical studies of the design concepts of Wikipedia. You just can't speak the truth to power over there and expect to get away with it.
I watched the case fairly closely, though I was under a three month site ban, it was indeed like watching a lamb being led to the slaughter. He believed in Wikipedia. Didn't protect him.
The "truth to power" thing was far more applicable to my case. Though, perhaps, there is such a thing as "too much truth." I'd always thought that if someone didn't want to read something on a Talk page, they could simply not read it. Well, I knew that wasn't true, but I wanted it to be!
I was looking at the demands and agreements wrested from Thekohser in the Last Days of his Temptation. What was his crime, his violation? Sarcastic edit summaries.
Really? They weren't personal attacks, they were what should have been reasonably protected speech. But sarcastic edit summaries, like "I pledge allegiance to ArbComm," were beyond the pale. This was clearly a community that could not tolerate contempt or ridicule of The Authorities. Thought crime, really. But a member of the cabal could run sarcastic anti-Arbcomm comment continually and what happened? Nothing. He had to get far nastier than that in order to get some negative attention.
Core problem: no community that is actually functional.
I stopped trying at Wikipedia because I noticed something. When I started and I was attacked, there would be editors who would show to say something sensible, at least moderating it. When I would detail my understanding of how the wiki could work better, there would be people who would thank me and help explain it. That stopped happening.
My last block, interesting case. A matter came up before ArbComm and I was pointed, off-wiki, to mention of me by Mathsci, in a way that was highly deceptive and misleading. So ... I put up an explanation, with edit summary, "will self-revert per topic ban." And I reverted it.
One week block for ban violation. For all I know, nobody even noticed the edit except for Hipocrite, who filed the complaint, naturally. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=368730099#Abd
Used to be that several admins would show up to defend me. Was that edit disruptive? Do self-reverted edits violate bans? That is a question that apparently depended on whose ox was being gored. I'm arguing on Wikiversity for what I had thought might actually become policy on Wikipedia at one point, it had an arbitrator's support, and it was discussed and there was no opposition. Until I used it while under a topic ban, and the admin who had previously claimed that it was idiotic to consider a harmless edit a violation, even if the editor was banned from editing the article, proceeded to block me. (He was told later by ArbComm that he should not have made that decision.)
No, they don't violate bans, because they leave no mess to clean up. They do not complicate enforcement. It is as if the editor takes on the enforcement task! Running ban enforcement on a self-reverted edit is more disruptive than simply doing nothing. It's counter-intuitive, but self-reversion is a way for a banned editor to cooperate with a ban, it is not defiant at all. I made the edit to fulfill an obligation to testify, but there is no longer any community to testify to. That edit showed it to me.
Just for reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=368682168, and a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence&oldid=368682168#Response_of_Abd. It was still long.
Pearls before swine. This was crucial and relevant argument and evidence. When it suited the arbitrators, they introduced evidence from an illegally hacked mailing list (EEML case). But when there is something relevant from a "banned editor," as far as I can see, nobody even looked, except a very adverse party and an administrator who apparently didn't have a clue. No more. I think I discharged my duty. There is no there there. I think Wikipedia is like a shell, still showing a facade, ready to collapse from internal rot, the core is dead, vanished, gone, often with disgust at what Wikipedia became.
Posted by: Abd
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 27th September 2008, 9:56am)
If you would prefer, I would undo Jimbo's block, state that he doesn't have the power, and indef you myself.
Certainly, I preferred this, because it converted Moulton's block to a local action, where local consensus could address it. I'm not ready to move there yet, because the much cleaner case of Thekohser is available. And, indeed, Ottava's big complaint about my period of probationary custodianship was that I unblocked Ethical accountability without first having obtained consensus for it.
But policy suggests that custodians can unblock on personal initiative, provided that there was no community consensus establishing the block. There was no such consensus in the case of Thekohser. It's much muddier with Moulton.
As to the hypotheses, I'd not build too much on literal interpretations of what Jimbo says. I know from experience that when Jimbo says, "I've been having conversations with the board," as an example, he can mean as little as talking with one board member. I don't think he was lying about the conversations, but he uses language that is imprecise to convey a desired impression, it's a fairly common habit.
So I conclude from Jimbo's comment that he did indeed talk with one custodian, or possibly with more, at Wikiversity. Given Ottava's comment, it could have been him. He was a new custodian then, as I recall, but I don't know enough of the politics then to speculate more than that. I do see, here, mikeu pop in, could have been him.
I recently concluded that Jimbo was being used as an excuse by at least one Wikiversity custodian, Ottava. Ottava was promoting Fear of Jimbo as a way to solidify and consolidate his personal image of himself as Defender of Wikiversity Against the Threat of Closure.
I considered the reblocking of Moulton/Caprice and Thekohser/Ethical accountability to be progress, because the deflection of responsibility to local custodians, and thus ultimately to local process, was a great step toward an honest assessment of the situation, if that is possible. I believe that cooperation from Thekohser has shown that something is terribly wrong at Wikiversity. Adambro is actually not the problem, JWS has it wrong. The problem is that the community is somnulent, burned out, distracted, or doesn't care. Adambro is incorrect in his interpretations, but, damn!, isn't he something like 20 years old? He's actually doing quite well, considering.
Why has the community concentrated its custodial activity into the hands of mostly Ottava and Adambro, with the less offensive Darklama tossed in? And Jtneill hoping that everyone will be nice and that should fix it all.
Maybe. But it will take more than that. Being nice would be a part of it, or at least pretending to be nice. It's called civility, and it's an ingredient, an important one, in dispute resolution process. First step is to stop the people from calling each other trolls, dicks, dictators, liars, etc.
Hence I blocked Ottava for blatant incivility and watched him come unglued. Response testing, very appropriate and accurately applied. Fully justified by the circumstances, fully justified by his own prior actions with others. Wikiversity policy is astonishingly wimpy, civility policy boiling down to "be nice," with no enforcement, basically good advice, but utterly naive. The result of that? A community that was unable to address civility problems and actually resolve them. A reality of blocked editors being called trolls and being unable to defend themselves, even civilly. And a custodian, Ottava, Mr. Jeffrey Peters, as he has clearly announced to the world, but, hey, block Moulton if he mentions it, who considers himself the prime mover at Wikiversity, the core of the project, who feels completely free to call SB_Johnny a "liar" and free to ignore a clear warning, and then free to hide the resulting block and the self-unblock (that would be grounds for immediate desysop on Wikipedia) from being seen, and the community will do ... what?
Could be nothing. Nothing at all. And as far as I'm concerned, if this is the end of it, the community gets what it deserves. Ottava Rex. I might even keep some space there, but not without backups, and I doubt that I will be bringing in the alternative education people, I would not dare subject them to that.
On the other hand, there are some signs for hope, such as Jtneill's invitation to Moulton to cooperate. It's going to be tough for Ottava et al to stop that. If Moulton picks up on self-reversion, it's all over. They cannot prevent that. Period. Not without making it blatantly obvious what the real agenda is.
(If their real agenda is actually the welfare of Wikiversity, they won't oppose this very safe cooperative procedure. Moulton will or won't sign on because he has a somewhat different agenda than, say, mine,I can't predict. But there remain, so far, some interesting possibilities.)
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 5th August 2010, 9:13pm)
The "truth to power" thing was far more applicable to my case. Though, perhaps, there is such a thing as "too much truth."
Do you know that http://www.google.com/search?q=Jack+Nicholson+quotes+you+want+truth with Jack Nicholson?
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 5th August 2010, 9:13pm)
I was looking at the demands and agreements wrested from Thekohser in the Last Days of his Temptation. What was his crime, his violation? Sarcastic edit summaries.
One would naively think that contumacious dismissiveness wouldn't lead to bloody hell.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 5th August 2010, 9:13pm)
This was clearly a community that could not tolerate contempt or ridicule of The Authorities.
Nor was it the first such example of that kind of intolerance of cheeky petulance.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 5th August 2010, 9:13pm)
One week block for ban violation. For all I know, nobody even noticed the edit except for Hipocrite, who filed the complaint, naturally.
Hipocrite is a most fascinating character. He is an expert at playing http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/05/wikipedia-playing-the-game/.
QUOTE(Hipocrite)
Until Abd is willing to follow his sanctions, he should not be permitted the leniency of editing.
Do you suppose Ottava http://encyc.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Caprice from Hipocrite?
Posted by: Moulton
Two years ago, there was a spate of huge range blocks on Wikiversity and on IRC. Here is the documentation about the range blocks on Wikiversity...
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 5th October 2008, 1:43am)
Mike Umbricht (in concert with Emesee and Ottava Rima) has again blocked 260,000 IPs in Greater Boston...
QUOTE(Wikiversity)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians#range_block_log
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=342396&oldid=341772. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Emesee and http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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. --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=342396&oldid=341772. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Emesee and http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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. --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- See http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/. —http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User: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 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moulton_2DFS (now http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMoulton_2DFS) who has made edits that required http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians&diff=prev&oldid=342128. Additionally, there were other anon ips, outside the ranges listed above, that engaged in an edit war over Moulton's edits. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 has been removing the edits, and at least http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.93.25.195 has been reinserting them. By continuing to allow http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 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 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=340187&oldid=340186 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_talk:Respect_people&diff=prev&oldid=341533. --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Block the range for a year. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm relatively certain that http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/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. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147 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. --http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:SB_Johnny http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- See also: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.202.65.147. 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? --http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mu301&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Mu301 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...
But the part that perplexes me is why the custodians, led by Sebmol, would go on a rampage http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Sebmol...
QUOTE(Sebmol destroys literature on Wikiversity)
# 04:23, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:ajC5jj2XzWoJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:QR7neDPmzcYJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:4oGEpffZHM0J:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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 "http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:e-k48MYsGnoJ:en.wikiversity.org/wiki/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.
There were comparable range blocks on IRC, too.
Now we have a log from that epoch...
QUOTE(#wikimedia IRC channel)
Log file opened at: Dec 8, 2008 12:51:06 PM
12:51:06 PM: *** Topic for #wikimedia: Wikimedia Foundation, http://wikimediafoundation.org | Status: Up | No public logging | Chanops: #wikimedia-ops | Stewards: #wikimedia-stewards | Software questions or issues? #mediawiki | Server issues: #wikimedia-tech | Toolserver: #wikimedia-toolserver | It's fundraiser time! Donate now: http://donate.wikimedia.org
12:51:06 PM: *** Topic for #wikimedia set by cary on November 18, 2008 1:26:47 PM
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: JWSchmidt DragonFire_aw GerardM- WalterBE WaRpAtH shimgray Reedy brianmc GerardM__ predr wing2 AfterDea1h davidstrauss__ Melos chb MarkDilley MrZ-man Mike_lifeguard wpedzich maikmerten Thogo brion hcatlin Wegge _sj| Submarine Prodego Bdka randmontoya Rdsmith4 odder Ainali Schildkroete AzaTht Sundance_Raphael Rjd0060 gribeco toniher ialex Fabexplosive geimfyglid jgay Platonides LeBron Anthere2 Snowolf Majorly MBisanz SonicAD_ yannf Bjelleklang
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Halterman Tiptoety|away p858snake Jhs dungodung fosco shanel werdan7 dircbot nn123645 VasilievVV aib Hosiryuhosi Schroeder jeronim AndrewB GDonato Cobi James_F|Away White_Cat JeLuF fnordus mark brick moogle Rudha-an phuzion tcliou|A1ay pawalls Danny_B ST47 JonathanD Zach__ techman224 domas Elisson christel MZMcBride Donor Atluxity kibble Az1568_ wimt enhydra puzzlet AntiSpamMeta Brownout unilinky hausgeist davy_s truewiki Adrian^L seanw @ChanServ
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: sam skenmy Simetrical sj yksinaisyyteni falxx issyl0 felipe_ Martinp23 Versa|gone henrik norm1037 str4nd avatar HardDisk_WP
12:51:06 PM: *** End of /NAMES list.
7:32:24 PM: *** Mike||antispam is now known as Mike_lifeguard
8:07:07 PM: *** WaRpAtH (i=Gambit@wikimedia/Cometstyles) has joined channel #wikimedia
8:49:59 PM: *** Mike_lifeguard_ (n=Mike@wikibooks/mike.lifeguard) has joined channel #wikimedia
6:39:12 PM: Mike_H: Mike||antispam: Why did you block all those IPs in Massachusetts?
6:39:28 PM: Mike||anti: Which ones?
6:39:38 PM: Mike_H: apparently the ones that block a good portion of Boston
6:39:43 PM: Mike_H: on Wikisource or somewhere
6:39:48 PM: Mike||anti: Because of Moulton.
6:39:58 PM: Mike_H: yeah, but you realize that innocent people can't edit that now, right?
6:39:59 PM: Mike_H: like, for good?
6:40:07 PM: Mike||anti: No, it's not indef.
6:40:08 PM: Mike_H: and not like 3 innocent people
6:40:10 PM: Mike_H: like thousands
6:40:23 PM: Mike||anti: Yes, I'm aware of how big the ranges are.
6:40:26 PM: brion: damn bostonians
6:40:28 PM: brion: they had it coming
6:40:54 PM: Mike||anti: Luckily there seems to be no collateral damage. One "perk" of working on tiny projects where nobody edits.
6:41:12 PM: Mike||anti: Mike_H: I assume Moulton is badmouthing me somewhere?
6:41:14 PM: DanielB lols @ brick
6:41:17 PM: DanielB: brion, even...
6:41:27 PM: DanielB: (soz to br/ick)
6:41:31 PM: Mike_H: Mike||antispam: Wikipedia Review, you can go respond there
6:41:43 PM: Mike||anti: Well, I /could/ but I'm not going to.
6:42:03 PM: Mike||anti: Plus that's old news
6:44:19 PM: WaRpAtH: lol brick
6:45:10 PM: WaRpAtH: yeah WR doesn't like Mike already
6:45:13 PM: WaRpAtH: he has his own thread O_O
6:46:27 PM: Mike||anti: I do?
6:46:30 PM: Mike||anti: I'm famous
6:47:19 PM: Mike_H: I don't know
6:47:22 PM: Mike_H: if someone had an issue with me
6:47:24 PM: Mike_H: I'd go clear it up
6:47:28 PM: Mike_H: I mean, why wouldn't you want to?
6:47:32 PM: Mike_H: it's kind of a dumb issue to not clear up
6:48:13 PM: Mike||anti: No, it's Moulton.
6:48:28 PM: Mike||anti: Nobody cares (except him)
6:48:54 PM: Mike||anti: In fact, if he's whining that I've done something wrong it's probably because I've done something right.
6:49:10 PM: Mike_H: um
6:49:11 PM: Mike_H: yeah
6:49:12 PM: Mike_H: you go with that.
6:49:28 PM: Mike||anti: He neglects to mention why the rangeblocks were necessary, I imagine. And that the ones I placed were significantly narrower than the previous ones.
6:49:45 PM: Mike||anti: And that in placing them I actually /checked/ to see whether there would be collateral.
6:49:53 PM: Mike||anti: And so on.
6:52:03 PM: WaRpAtH: [[WP:Nobody cares about Moulton]]
12:51:06 PM: *** Topic for #wikimedia: Wikimedia Foundation, http://wikimediafoundation.org | Status: Up | No public logging | Chanops: #wikimedia-ops | Stewards: #wikimedia-stewards | Software questions or issues? #mediawiki | Server issues: #wikimedia-tech | Toolserver: #wikimedia-toolserver | It's fundraiser time! Donate now: http://donate.wikimedia.org
12:51:06 PM: *** Topic for #wikimedia set by cary on November 18, 2008 1:26:47 PM
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: JWSchmidt DragonFire_aw GerardM- WalterBE WaRpAtH shimgray Reedy brianmc GerardM__ predr wing2 AfterDea1h davidstrauss__ Melos chb MarkDilley MrZ-man Mike_lifeguard wpedzich maikmerten Thogo brion hcatlin Wegge _sj| Submarine Prodego Bdka randmontoya Rdsmith4 odder Ainali Schildkroete AzaTht Sundance_Raphael Rjd0060 gribeco toniher ialex Fabexplosive geimfyglid jgay Platonides LeBron Anthere2 Snowolf Majorly MBisanz SonicAD_ yannf Bjelleklang
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Halterman Tiptoety|away p858snake Jhs dungodung fosco shanel werdan7 dircbot nn123645 VasilievVV aib Hosiryuhosi Schroeder jeronim AndrewB GDonato Cobi James_F|Away White_Cat JeLuF fnordus mark brick moogle Rudha-an phuzion tcliou|A1ay pawalls Danny_B ST47 JonathanD Zach__ techman224 domas Elisson christel MZMcBride Donor Atluxity kibble Az1568_ wimt enhydra puzzlet AntiSpamMeta Brownout unilinky hausgeist davy_s truewiki Adrian^L seanw @ChanServ
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: sam skenmy Simetrical sj yksinaisyyteni falxx issyl0 felipe_ Martinp23 Versa|gone henrik norm1037 str4nd avatar HardDisk_WP
12:51:06 PM: *** End of /NAMES list.
7:32:24 PM: *** Mike||antispam is now known as Mike_lifeguard
8:07:07 PM: *** WaRpAtH (i=Gambit@wikimedia/Cometstyles) has joined channel #wikimedia
8:49:59 PM: *** Mike_lifeguard_ (n=Mike@wikibooks/mike.lifeguard) has joined channel #wikimedia
6:39:12 PM: Mike_H: Mike||antispam: Why did you block all those IPs in Massachusetts?
6:39:28 PM: Mike||anti: Which ones?
6:39:38 PM: Mike_H: apparently the ones that block a good portion of Boston
6:39:43 PM: Mike_H: on Wikisource or somewhere
6:39:48 PM: Mike||anti: Because of Moulton.
6:39:58 PM: Mike_H: yeah, but you realize that innocent people can't edit that now, right?
6:39:59 PM: Mike_H: like, for good?
6:40:07 PM: Mike||anti: No, it's not indef.
6:40:08 PM: Mike_H: and not like 3 innocent people
6:40:10 PM: Mike_H: like thousands
6:40:23 PM: Mike||anti: Yes, I'm aware of how big the ranges are.
6:40:26 PM: brion: damn bostonians
6:40:28 PM: brion: they had it coming
6:40:54 PM: Mike||anti: Luckily there seems to be no collateral damage. One "perk" of working on tiny projects where nobody edits.
6:41:12 PM: Mike||anti: Mike_H: I assume Moulton is badmouthing me somewhere?
6:41:14 PM: DanielB lols @ brick
6:41:17 PM: DanielB: brion, even...
6:41:27 PM: DanielB: (soz to br/ick)
6:41:31 PM: Mike_H: Mike||antispam: Wikipedia Review, you can go respond there
6:41:43 PM: Mike||anti: Well, I /could/ but I'm not going to.
6:42:03 PM: Mike||anti: Plus that's old news
6:44:19 PM: WaRpAtH: lol brick
6:45:10 PM: WaRpAtH: yeah WR doesn't like Mike already
6:45:13 PM: WaRpAtH: he has his own thread O_O
6:46:27 PM: Mike||anti: I do?
6:46:30 PM: Mike||anti: I'm famous
6:47:19 PM: Mike_H: I don't know
6:47:22 PM: Mike_H: if someone had an issue with me
6:47:24 PM: Mike_H: I'd go clear it up
6:47:28 PM: Mike_H: I mean, why wouldn't you want to?
6:47:32 PM: Mike_H: it's kind of a dumb issue to not clear up
6:48:13 PM: Mike||anti: No, it's Moulton.
6:48:28 PM: Mike||anti: Nobody cares (except him)
6:48:54 PM: Mike||anti: In fact, if he's whining that I've done something wrong it's probably because I've done something right.
6:49:10 PM: Mike_H: um
6:49:11 PM: Mike_H: yeah
6:49:12 PM: Mike_H: you go with that.
6:49:28 PM: Mike||anti: He neglects to mention why the rangeblocks were necessary, I imagine. And that the ones I placed were significantly narrower than the previous ones.
6:49:45 PM: Mike||anti: And that in placing them I actually /checked/ to see whether there would be collateral.
6:49:53 PM: Mike||anti: And so on.
6:52:03 PM: WaRpAtH: [[WP:Nobody cares about Moulton]]
It appears to me that Mike Umbricht, Cometstyles, and Mike.lifeguard were gaming the system in their Game of Tribal Warfare against the tribe with me, Greg, and Privatemusings.
Posted by: MZMcBride
Scandalous.
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 15th August 2010, 12:53am)
Scandalous.
Your precious "encyclopedia" is being mismanaged into a state of drivel, and that's all you can say?
Anyone with half his wits would have made a deal with Moulton, because he's obviously a worthy
contributor, and because the way WP is set up, he can always weasel his way into it, regardless of
what those Wiki-Twits do. Evidently Wikipedia is run by people who've lost their Wit Dispensers.