FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Jimbo's lording over Wikiversity again -
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th March 2010, 12:20am)
Jimbo, Jimbo, when will you ever learn? You cause more trouble than it's worth.
Well, you just have to remember, it's not the "breaching experiment" part that bothers them - to them, that's just more participation, and therefore a good thing. It's the "ethical" part they can't deal with, because they know deep down inside that what they're doing by trying to maintain the Wikipedia edifice is, itself, deeply and fundamentally unethical. Anything that threatens to expose the truth of that must be suppressed - there will never be any point in trying to organize these things on a Wikimedia-funded "project." I'm afraid Mr. Privatemusings never really had a chance, unfortunately.
It's an interesting problem... it seems like you can only claim valid results if you can maintain secrecy, but then who do you trust? You almost have to do the whole thing single-handedly to make sure, and that's a lot of effort if you want to put together a big-enough sample to mean anything.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 13th March 2010, 12:05am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th March 2010, 12:20am)
Jimbo, Jimbo, when will you ever learn? You cause more trouble than it's worth.
Well, you just have to remember, it's not the "breaching experiment" part that bothers them - to them, that's just more participation, and therefore a good thing. It's the "ethical" part they can't deal with, because they know deep down inside that what they're doing by trying to maintain the Wikipedia edifice is, itself, deeply and fundamentally unethical. Anything that threatens to expose the truth of that must be suppressed - there will never be any point in trying to organize these things on a Wikimedia-funded "project." I'm afraid Mr. Privatemusings never really had a chance, unfortunately.
It's an interesting problem... it seems like you can only claim valid results if you can maintain secrecy, but then who do you trust? You almost have to do the whole thing single-handedly to make sure, and that's a lot of effort if you want to put together a big-enough sample to mean anything.
Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious!
Wikipedia is an ethical klein bottle - there is no "deep down inside" in which to know things. They just don't like bad press. I'm not sure what PM is up to, but I'm rooting for him. Who doesn't enjoy Wales breaching? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
After a bit of reflection and breakfast, maybe we can do it better this time, since there's not a secondary problem confusing the issue this time. Could be interesting at any rate.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
Are all you Wikiversity people aware that your Main Page's "News" section contains four items, the most recent of which is from August 2009? (Is Wikiversity the Movie still going ahead? Who's going to play Moulton? I understand noted actor Michael Schmidt may have some time on his hands soon, and he has previous experience playing a troll.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 13th March 2010, 6:28am)
Are all you Wikiversity people aware that your Main Page's "News" section contains four items, the most recent of which is from August 2009? (Is Wikiversity the Movie still going ahead? Who's going to play Moulton? I understand noted actor Michael Schmidt may have some time on his hands soon, and he has previous experience playing a troll.)
Are you confusing him with JWSchmidt?
Frankly I've never gotten involved in the main page: it's always been at the center of various dramas.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
Jimbo's threatening to close Wikiversity again...
"If you don't let me make up new rules I'm taking my ball and going home." Does he even have the power to close Wikiversity (or any of the WMF projects) unilaterally even if he wanted to? If he does, I'd imagine there'd be a valid case for any WMF donor to demand their money back as it's no longer being used for the purpose for which it was solicited. (IANAL when it comes to Florida, but AFAIK that's a basic principle of charity-law US-wide.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 13th March 2010, 10:36am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
Jimbo's threatening to close Wikiversity again...
"If you don't let me make up new rules I'm taking my ball and going home." Does he even have the power to close Wikiversity (or any of the WMF projects) unilaterally even if he wanted to? If he does, I'd imagine there'd be a valid case for any WMF donor to demand their money back as it's no longer being used for the purpose for which it was solicited. (IANAL when it comes to Florida, but AFAIK that's a basic principle of charity-law US-wide.)
I'm fairly sure he doesn't. The disturbing thing is that this is the same thing he said when pressuring us about Moulton, and we collectively tucked our tails between our legs.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:42pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 13th March 2010, 10:36am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
Jimbo's threatening to close Wikiversity again...
"If you don't let me make up new rules I'm taking my ball and going home." Does he even have the power to close Wikiversity (or any of the WMF projects) unilaterally even if he wanted to? If he does, I'd imagine there'd be a valid case for any WMF donor to demand their money back as it's no longer being used for the purpose for which it was solicited. (IANAL when it comes to Florida, but AFAIK that's a basic principle of charity-law US-wide.)
I'm fairly sure he doesn't. The disturbing thing is that this is the same thing he said when pressuring us about Moulton, and we collectively tucked our tails between our legs.
There is a valid case to be made for closing Wikiversity (and even more so Wikinews) as not-best-use-of-funds-or-time as regards the WMF's sole legal object ("to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally") towards which all those millions of Google dollars are supposed to flow.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
Wikiversity seems an especially ill focused wing of the WMF projects. I really don't know what it is suppose to be. It seems to have no interest in any kind of instruction whatsoever. Perhaps it is merely some kind of phony research institution. If so it is a miserable failure at that too.
One thing that has always struck me as odd about WP as "a learning community" is that it has a complete absence of people who actually have interest in learning anything. It is more of a vehicle for expresson of the rampant smarty-pants-ism that infects Wikipedians.
I have spent considerable time in recent months in various on-line communities of people pursuing language acquisition. Things are much different in such communities as many participants are very motivated in learning from other participants. This combines nicely with the fact that an ordinary person who is a native speaker of a language is in many ways a better authority than someone with graduate training in the same language. The result is a kind of humility and cooperation that is the exact opposite of WMF projects. These online communities may offer a viable alternative to WP to people interested in learning communities, unless of course they are only interested in their own brand of smartypantsism.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 13th March 2010, 10:36am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
Jimbo's threatening to close Wikiversity again...
"If you don't let me make up new rules I'm taking my ball and going home." Does he even have the power to close Wikiversity (or any of the WMF projects) unilaterally even if he wanted to? If he does, I'd imagine there'd be a valid case for any WMF donor to demand their money back as it's no longer being used for the purpose for which it was solicited. (IANAL when it comes to Florida, but AFAIK that's a basic principle of charity-law US-wide.)
While he is being a cry-baby, he did at least say he was going to take a recommendation to the The Board to close Wikiversity. So, he's not really saying "he" will close Wikiversity.
The thing about demanding money back is interesting, but in practice, it will be irrelevant -- because clearly 99.9% of the financial donors to the Wikimedia Foundation don't even care whether their money is being used effectively or not, given that a critique like this hasn't dissuaded them yet. They are brainwashed. If they are told by Jay Walsh and Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales that the closure of Wikiversity was necessary to further the goals of the Foundation, the cult followers will believe. That's how a cult works.
Now, Hale-Bopp is approaching, and our spaceship outta here is hiding from NASA radar behind that comet. Brothers and sisters and Wikimedia donors, take these pills, put on your track suits, and lay down in your bunk beds.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th March 2010, 11:26am)
Wikiversity seems an especially ill focused wing of the WMF projects. I really don't know what it is suppose to be. It seems to have no interest in any kind of instruction whatsoever. Perhaps it is merely some kind of phony research institution. If so it is a miserable failure at that too.
One thing that has always struck me as odd about WP as "a learning community" is that it has a complete absence of people who actually have interest in learning anything. It is more of a vehicle for expresson of the rampant smarty-pants-ism that infects Wikipedians.
I have spent considerable time in recent months in various on-line communities of people pursuing language acquisition. Things are much different in such communities as many participants are very motivated in learning from other participants. This combines nicely with the fact that an ordinary person who is a native speaker of a language is in many ways a better authority than someone with graduate training in the same language. The result is a kind of humility and cooperation that is the exact opposite of WMF projects. These online communities may offer a viable alternative to WP to people interested in learning communities, unless of course they are only interested in their own brand of smartypantsism.
Well, not a complete absence. My original involvement on WP was making stubs for obscure weeds and wildflowers I was researching, and they were added to by others who knew more, etc. Stress there on "others who knew more" though: this was before the BLP circus had infected everything to the point that a simple addition of information about an obscure weed or wildflower was instantly reverted under "WP:V".
My original involvement on wikiversity was pretty much on the same lines: working on the Bloom Clock was certainly educational for me personally, and my contributions there are now an "open notebook" for anyone who wants to continue it (in fact, my employees refer to the keys there frequently when boning up on the plants we work with).
The wiki's mission and scope are rather hard to fathom (to me, too!), and it's never really had much in the way of positive attention from the foundation. In fact, I'm leaning toward the opinion that our association with the foundation has done much more harm than good over the years.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th March 2010, 6:13pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 13th March 2010, 10:36am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
Jimbo's threatening to close Wikiversity again...
"If you don't let me make up new rules I'm taking my ball and going home." Does he even have the power to close Wikiversity (or any of the WMF projects) unilaterally even if he wanted to? If he does, I'd imagine there'd be a valid case for any WMF donor to demand their money back as it's no longer being used for the purpose for which it was solicited. (IANAL when it comes to Florida, but AFAIK that's a basic principle of charity-law US-wide.)
While he is being a cry-baby, he did at least say he was going to take a recommendation to the The Board to close Wikiversity. So, he's not really saying "he" will close Wikiversity.
The thing about demanding money back is interesting, but in practice, it will be irrelevant -- because clearly 99.9% of the financial donors to the Wikimedia Foundation don't even care whether their money is being used effectively or not, given that a critique like this hasn't dissuaded them yet. They are brainwashed. If they are told by Jay Walsh and Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales that the closure of Wikiversity was necessary to further the goals of the Foundation, the cult followers will believe. That's how a cult works.
Now, Hale-Bopp is approaching, and our spaceship outta here is hiding from NASA radar behind that comet. Brothers and sisters and Wikimedia donors, take these pills, put on your track suits, and lay down in your bunk beds.
Amusing analysis, but really will only convince members of the anticult cult to which you belong.
The reality is that a) Wikiversity is a pointless waste of time, which any responsible charitable board would wish to de-invest in. b) You really think the Wikimedia Foundation is being unreasonable in not allowing its servers to be used to plot breeching experiments?
Try starting a facebook group called "how to destroy facebook"- and get some sensible suggestions that might cause them trouble - and see how long you'd last.
One does not need to be a Jimbo-groupie, or drink any kool-aid, to see this analysis is only useful for those recovering from alien abductions.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th March 2010, 1:13pm)
While he is being a cry-baby, he did at least say he was going to take a recommendation to the The Board to close Wikiversity. So, he's not really saying "he" will close Wikiversity.
The thing about demanding money back is interesting, but in practice, it will be irrelevant -- because clearly 99.9% of the financial donors to the Wikimedia Foundation don't even care whether their money is being used effectively or not, given that a critique like this hasn't dissuaded them yet. They are brainwashed. If they are told by Jay Walsh and Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales that the closure of Wikiversity was necessary to further the goals of the Foundation, the cult followers will believe. That's how a cult works.
Now, Hale-Bopp is approaching, and our spaceship outta here is hiding from NASA radar behind that comet. Brothers and sisters and Wikimedia donors, take these pills, put on your track suits, and lay down in your bunk beds.
Tell ya what Greg: if we buy a domain name, can we direct it to your IP? Serious question, because he's just gonna keep doing this and a good number of us are profoundly dissatisfied. I'll take you over Jimbo any day.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 13th March 2010, 1:21pm)
Try starting a facebook group called "how to destroy facebook"- and get some sensible suggestions that might cause them trouble - and see how long you'd last.
Nice try, but the Facebook group would be called something more like, "Documenting past flaws and mistakes of Facebook, and discussion of ethical experiments that would test Facebook's current quality-control measures".
Doc, I don't even know why I'm having to point this out to you. Do you really think Privatemusings was out to "destroy Wikipedia"? Or, do you think he was curious about finding ways to document and discuss the unethical problems that Wikipedia chooses to harbor in the name of something else. I believe the latter, but if you want to go about it in a more juvenile manner, feel free.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 1:21pm)
Tell ya what Greg: if we buy a domain name, can we direct it to your IP? Serious question, because he's just gonna keep doing this and a good number of us are profoundly dissatisfied. I'll take you over Jimbo any day.
Do you mean that you'd be building content directly on Wikipedia Review.com, but using another domain name to "direct" traffic into it? (Similar to what I do with www.GregoryKohs.com ?) I'd be delighted to see something like that develop.
If, on the other hand, you're asking if I will be the "benevolent server host manager" for a project that would fully reside on your chosen domain name... I would consider it, but I'm not sure I need another website to manage in my life right now.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th March 2010, 2:21pm)
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 13th March 2010, 1:21pm)
Try starting a facebook group called "how to destroy facebook"- and get some sensible suggestions that might cause them trouble - and see how long you'd last.
Nice try, but the Facebook group would be called something more like, "Documenting past flaws and mistakes of Facebook, and discussion of ethical experiments that would test Facebook's current quality-control measures".
Doc, I don't even know why I'm having to point this out to you. Do you really think Privatemusings was out to "destroy Wikipedia"? Or, do you think he was curious about finding ways to document and discuss the unethical problems that Wikipedia chooses to harbor in the name of something else. I believe the latter, but if you want to go about it in a more juvenile manner, feel free.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 1:21pm)
Tell ya what Greg: if we buy a domain name, can we direct it to your IP? Serious question, because he's just gonna keep doing this and a good number of us are profoundly dissatisfied. I'll take you over Jimbo any day.
Do you mean that you'd be building content directly on Wikipedia Review.com, but using another domain name to "direct" traffic into it? (Similar to what I do with www.GregoryKohs.com ?) I'd be delighted to see something like that develop.
If, on the other hand, you're asking if I will be the "benevolent server host manager" for a project that would fully reside on your chosen domain name... I would consider it, but I'm not sure I need another website to manage in my life right now.
I'm flattered that you'd ask me.
Probably more of the latter, assuming you have bandwidth and don't have to pay extra for additional domains. We've been pretty well burned by the old boss, so having control of the domain name would be better for us. No offense, but "wikipediareview.com" doesn't fell, well, pseudoacademic enough (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
Why flattered? I thought it pretty clear that you have respect (except, of course, when you get a bit too vulgar for my tastes).
Yikes, what an idiot! Even after being corrected, this person insists that the term "ethical breaching experiment" must actually mean "an experiment designed to 'breach ethics,'" by which I assume he means "commit a breach of ethics."
Actually, with people like that around, why isn't Wikiversity shut down? It's obviously a complete failure in almost every sense of the word, and if people like that are allowed to influence policy, or even content, there's not much hope of improvement.
Yikes, what an idiot! Even after being corrected, this person insists that the term "ethical breaching experiment" must actually mean "an experiment designed to 'breach ethics,'" by which I assume he means "commit a breach of ethics."
Actually, with people like that around, why isn't Wikiversity shut down? It's obviously a complete failure in almost every sense of the word, and if people like that are allowed to influence policy, or even content, there's not much hope of improvement.
You know that's just an "SPA", right? Jimmy has a deep pool of attack dawgs to call on, I suspect this one was dredged up from there. The 'crats know how to weigh things, after all (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
But go! Nephew! We're ruined! Everything's gone! And I predicted it! I predicted it! What's happened? I knew it, I ran miles to tell you What is it? I forgive everybody What is it? This! Locusts! The flying plague! Well! Let them come! But the lion, the harvest! What can we do against the gods? It's not the gods! It's a thing of nature! We can fight it! Have you ever seen a plague of locusts? No but … I have! They came in millions The air is black with them and stinky
I saw it. Your fellow custodians are a good bit more battle hardened than we were last time though, Jeff. Privatemusings is actually a good man for the job (since he tends to observe and comment rather than act), and I hope you'll do your part in his defense on this.
That's the hard part, you know: defending people even though you'd rather they not do what they're doing.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
By the way, this little nonsense by RTG claims that the project existed for three months without a response.
However, it was created 00:54, 1 March 2010 and I deleted and salted the problematic socking guide (that formed the basis of the project) on 1:38, 1 March 2010. A window of 42 minutes existed. I also posted a note to privatemusings on his talk page discussing the limits to what he can and can not do in regards to the matter.
I find it interesting that RTG completely lied about the matter.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
My advice to Wikiversity (or any other project cursed by his interventions): Tell Jimbo he can have as much influence on Wikiversity as his contributions to your project warrant. In other words: if he's not writing for the project, he needs to get lost, because you're not giving him any special privileges.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
My advice to Wikiversity (or any other project cursed by his interventions): Tell Jimbo he can have as much influence on Wikiversity as his contributions to your project warrant. In other words: if he's not writing for the project, he needs to get lost, because you're not giving him any special privileges.
At least Mr. Wales seems to have enough sense to direct his concerns in the direction of the WMF Board and not trust in the wisdom of the crowd.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 8:06pm)
I saw it. Your fellow custodians are a good bit more battle hardened than we were last time though, Jeff. Privatemusings is actually a good man for the job (since he tends to observe and comment rather than act), and I hope you'll do your part in his defense on this.
That's the hard part, you know: defending people even though you'd rather they not do what they're doing.
I left him with a warning after I deleted the production of content that was deemed unacceptable for WMF linkage. He stopped furthering the process. I made it apparent what happened on his talk page.
If everyone bothered to look first, they would have seen that the matter was handled and stopped 12 days earlier. I do not think privatemusings should be blocked, and I hope Jimbo will reconsider the block after seeing that privatemusings was dealt with on the topic and did not pursue it further. Could someone please point that out and point out that the person trying to cause trouble came 12 days after the situation was handled?
I just find it insulting that the matter was finished and settled, without any resulting problems, and this happens anyway. Jimbo is not to blame but the person who posted on his talk page like that is clearly responsible for skewing the matter in a very inappropriate way.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:33pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 8:06pm)
I saw it. Your fellow custodians are a good bit more battle hardened than we were last time though, Jeff. Privatemusings is actually a good man for the job (since he tends to observe and comment rather than act), and I hope you'll do your part in his defense on this.
That's the hard part, you know: defending people even though you'd rather they not do what they're doing.
I left him with a warning after I deleted the production of content that was deemed unacceptable for WMF linkage. He stopped furthering the process. I made it apparent what happened on his talk page.
If everyone bothered to look first, they would have seen that the matter was handled and stopped 12 days earlier. I do not think privatemusings should be blocked, and I hope Jimbo will reconsider the block after seeing that privatemusings was dealt with on the topic and did not pursue it further. Could someone please point that out and point out that the person trying to cause trouble came 12 days after the situation was handled?
I just find it insulting that the matter was finished and settled, without any resulting problems, and this happens anyway. Jimbo is not to blame but the person who posted on his talk page like that is clearly responsible for skewing the matter in a very inappropriate way.
You know I unblocked and undeleted already, don't you?
And Jimbo is definitely to blame for the whole knee-jerky thing. He's clueless about WV, and shouldn't meddle there.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:30pm)
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:27pm)
My advice to Wikiversity (or any other project cursed by his interventions): Tell Jimbo he can have as much influence on Wikiversity as his contributions to your project warrant. In other words: if he's not writing for the project, he needs to get lost, because you're not giving him any special privileges.
At least Mr. Wales seems to have enough sense to direct his concerns in the direction of the WMF Board and not trust in the wisdom of the crowd.
He's only doing that because he knows "the crowd" is against him in this case. I suspect the board will see that the crowd is wiser than Jimbo in this case, because in this case it is. I hope it's embarrassing for him when they tell him he's a kook.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 13th March 2010, 8:40pm)
You know I unblocked and undeleted already, don't you?
Doesn't matter. The only part of it that was of concern was the page I deleted, which formed the basis for the project. The rest was just meaningless structure that served no purpose deleted or undeleted. He could have just reframed and talked about past experiments with what he was left (as it was clear he could not use WV to conduct new ones, as we shouldn't be promoting what could be construed as war between projects).
What matters is that someone played Jimbo and no one has pointed it out yet. Jimbo has every right to meddle and work with us, but people do not have a right to lie to Jimbo and misconstrue stuff to provoke him into doing such.
And Jimbo is definitely to blame for the whole knee-jerky thing. He's clueless about WV, and shouldn't meddle there.
I would post on Jimbo's talk page, but I clearly cannot (as he doesn't tend to read the others that are not Wikipedia).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
It appears that my deletion was known by the user who complained to Jimbo, and yet he did not once bother to tell Jimbo that the situation was already dealt with and the problematic material was already deleted.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 4,306
I'm (barely) up on a sunny sunday here - and am catching up with the various goings on - thanks to SB for unblocking and kicking off the discussion - I'm kinda busy doing nothing in the real world today, so probably won't comment at length, if at all, until tomorrow / early next week.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 13th March 2010, 3:51pm)
It appears that my deletion was known by the user who complained to Jimbo, and yet he did not once bother to tell Jimbo that the situation was already dealt with and the problematic material was already deleted.
I feel like blocking RTG on the basis of deceit.
Stop talking and start doing. You're the trusted guy, right?
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Sat 13th March 2010, 4:32pm)
I'm (barely) up on a sunny sunday here - and am catching up with the various goings on - thanks to SB for unblocking and kicking off the discussion - I'm kinda busy doing nothing in the real world today, so probably won't comment at length, if at all, until tomorrow / early next week.
Yikes, what an idiot! Even after being corrected, this person insists that the term "ethical breaching experiment" must actually mean "an experiment designed to 'breach ethics,'" by which I assume he means "commit a breach of ethics."
Actually, with people like that around, why isn't Wikiversity shut down? It's obviously a complete failure in almost every sense of the word, and if people like that are allowed to influence policy, or even content, there's not much hope of improvement.
You know that's just an "SPA", right? Jimmy has a deep pool of attack dawgs to call on, I suspect this one was dredged up from there. The 'crats know how to weigh things, after all (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
No, it's this guy. He only looks like an SPA because you're looking at his Wikiversity contribs, not his WP history.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 15th March 2010, 6:42pm)
I am prepared after witnessing this display of a half-erect Johnson in the locker room, that Jimmy Wales is a c-word that rhymes with "bunt".
QUOTE(Jimmy Wales)
Thank you. I agree completely and would like to emphasize that what I want to do here is empower this community to have stronger policies against this kind of trolling and disruption. You have important work to do here. One of the most important ways to build a community is to set down very clearly what you are NOT. Strong community does not come from an "anything goes" attitude - but from rallying around a set of principles that define the mission in such a way that productive work can be accomplished.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
See? He's just here to empower teh communiteh. They don't have enough power to ban trolls without Jimbo. No backbone. He says this:
QUOTE(Jimbo)
I raised it as a possibility. I stand behind it. I do not want to see Wikiversity closed - very far from it. What I want to see is Wikiversity's community feeling brave enough and strong enough to simply ban trolls on sight, and ask them to take their silly projects somewhere else - they can start their own "breaching experiments" site if they want. This project could be one of the most important and most exciting projects in the entire universe of education - and I think it can and will become that. But not unless the Foundation and the community take the potential seriously. If we can't take it seriously, and if we can't support this community towards positive goals, we should shut it or spin it off and let someone serious do it.--Jimbo Wales 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikiversity is not "brave enough and strong enough" to "ban trolls on sight." For this, you need a real man. WP itself is not known for banning trolls on sight, so somebody has to set an example for Wikiversity, or otherwise they'll learn bad lessons from the rest of Wikipedia.
Accordingly, Jimbo's solution: ban person on sight, and let them argue why they're NOT a troll. Or at least make them kiss the pope's ring to be let in again. Royal cringing required, SB.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 15th March 2010, 2:02pm)
Well, I've been desysopped. Funny how he does that after a few days discussion that doesn't support that at all.
You can be re-sysopped. Just get out your chapstick, kiss some stuff, and wash your mouth out with peroxide.
Alternately if you're too proud to realize what to kiss and when, you can hang out here with us. It's not nearly as fun as blocking vandals as an admin on WP, though. We warn you. There's just no substitute for some of the sweet things in life. If you bequeath your vandals and routine admin work to Jimbo, warn him not to do it too much, or he'll go blind.
Drat that Jimbo for cutting off your oxygen! Just when you had a glimpse of the meaning of life! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 16th March 2010, 7:24am)
QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 15th March 2010, 10:56pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 15th March 2010, 4:02pm)
Well, I've been desysopped. Funny how he does that after a few days discussion that doesn't support that at all.
Something doesn't seem right there at all, certainly not at first glance. Is there more to the story?
Not as far as I know (no email from him or anything). I suspect he's trying to push us to fork.
Of course, there is much more to the backstory, the bulk of which Jimbo previously expunged, when he asserted that a course on media ethics was beyond the scope of WMF-sponsored projects.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but does anyone still have access to the page(s) in question or a saved copy of their contents? I'm having a hard time imagining what could be worth so much fuss.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 16th March 2010, 11:24am)
QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 15th March 2010, 10:56pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 15th March 2010, 4:02pm)
Well, I've been desysopped. Funny how he does that after a few days discussion that doesn't support that at all.
Something doesn't seem right there at all, certainly not at first glance. Is there more to the story?
Not as far as I know (no email from him or anything). I suspect he's trying to push us to fork.
No; he's trying to push those who aren't sufficiently loyal to lash out at him so the en-wiki Civility Police can wade in and carry out a Sook Ching campaign to "restore order". As watchers of User talk:Jimbo Wales will know it's always been one of his preferred methods of clearing out the "toxic personalities", as it allows him to claim credit for any problems that get solved, while passing blame for any screwups on to the goons, many of whom are relatively young, don't really understand what's going on, and are happy to assume that the Great Helmsman is always right so any critic of his actions is by definition in error.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 16th March 2010, 7:38am)
Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but does anyone still have access to the page(s) in question or a saved copy of their contents? I'm having a hard time imagining what could be worth so much fuss.
I don't know if the entire collection of expunged pages are available, but some of the material was reconstituted in the aftermath of Jimbo's intervention.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 16th March 2010, 7:38am)
Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but does anyone still have access to the page(s) in question or a saved copy of their contents? I'm having a hard time imagining what could be worth so much fuss.
Well, google cached the main page. Not much to make such a fuss though.
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 16th March 2010, 7:38am)
Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but does anyone still have access to the page(s) in question or a saved copy of their contents? I'm having a hard time imagining what could be worth so much fuss.
Well, Google cached the main page. Not much to make such a fuss though.
There's some kind of java thingie that you can put in your toolbar to automatically do a WebArchive search on whatever page you're viewing, but WayBak is WayBehind these days and hasn't caught up to the time period in question — besides which a lot of talk pages are Robo-X-Cluded.
Mikeu, I would like to request that - in the interest of keeping drama to a minimum - you not do any of this. In particular, do not reflag SB_Johnny without my approval, do not undelete these articles without my approval, and do not unblock SB Johnny without my approval. I have the support of Sue Gardner to assist this community in a process of reform - and that process needs to proceed in an orderly and professional fashion, not as a civil war. I am neither dictatorial nor unreasonable, so there is no need to get into a wheel war with me.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Has Sue Gardner ever once participated on Wikiversity? No, she has not.
I've always said that the Foundation should grow some balls and start taking more responsibility for and control of its out-of-control projects... but it's palpably clear that the only thing motivating this particular show of resolve is the fact that (as Barry Kort has pointed out) that the Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in allowing the community to point out how the WMF might be persuaded to improve its position on matters of ethics.
...do not unblock SB Johnny without my approval. ...
He didn't block me... maybe he meant to?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 16th March 2010, 1:29pm)
Has Sue Gardner ever once participated on Wikiversity? No, she has not.
I've always said that the Foundation should grow some balls and start taking more responsibility for and control of its out-of-control projects... but it's palpably clear that the only thing motivating this particular show of resolve is the fact that (as Barry Kort has pointed out) that the Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in allowing the community to point out how the WMF might be persuaded to improve its position on matters of ethics.
What does that say to the independent observer?
I dunno about Sue, but I ran across Cary today and he didn't even know it had happened. I really don't know anything about her though: is she a rational person or just another Jimbophant? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
I suspect that aside from the reviewers of WR, this has probably excaped the notice of any independent observers. Fell free to leak to your fave pressmen. Or presswomen, if you're into that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Oh by the way, Jimbo's going to be on the BBC news hour (radio) tomorrow morning. They have a facebook page (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
Mikeu, I would like to request that - in the interest of keeping drama to a minimum - you not do any of this. In particular, do not reflag SB_Johnny without my approval, do not undelete these articles without my approval, and do not unblock SB Johnny without my approval. I have the support of Sue Gardner to assist this community in a process of reform - and that process needs to proceed in an orderly and professional fashion, not as a civil war. I am neither dictatorial nor unreasonable, so there is no need to get into a wheel war with me.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
He has the support of Sue Gardner. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) Of course, Sue had to kiss his ring (and maybe who knows what else) to get her job in the first place. And if she ever lost the support of Jimbo, she knows it would come down to a WMF board-war with pro-vs.-anti Jimbo factions lining up to see if they could do a coup (the last one almost made it). And a loss in that vote would mean Sue would be out of a cushy job. And the individual members of the WMF board (including the 3 out of 10 directly elected by the communiteh, I presume) all have to kiss Jimbo's ring and swear allegiance before being formally appointed, so it's not a very good chance to take. Jimbo's last ditch threat (spoken or unspoken) is such a vote of support from the WMF board, following which he gets anything, or fires anybody, that he likes.
So (meanwhile) they're "assisting the community" in the process of reform. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Who knew that the community required so much assistance? Jimbo and Sue could have started with BLP, but instead they started by stomping on SB_Johnny. Reading between the lines they really don't have much confidence in how much teh communiteh of volunteers will take from the WMF board as a whole, do they? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) In-ter-est-ing. Do not re-flag the guy without consulting with me?? WP:CONSENSUS goes out the window when Jimbo wants something. One infers therefore that de-sysopping SB-Johnny has become a "foundation issue." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
"I am neither dictatorial nor unreasonable, so there is no need to get into a wheel war with me."
I agree, quite strongly in fact, with those who would argue that Jimbo coming in to lay down the law is not an appropriate and sustainable longterm governance model for Wikiversity. I have no interest in doing things that way. At the same time, it is clear that at least so far, appropriate policies have not been put into place, and one of the reasons is that the endless search for consensus (a good thing) fails when there is no clear guidance on the endpoint goals. —Jimbo Wales 17:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I think now would be an excellent time for any of the level-headed Wikimedians who have ever participated in Wikiversity, to come to the aid of SB Johnny and Privatemusings and the integrity of the independent Wikiversity system, and call for Jimbo to be asked to kindly leave them alone.
If the Board or the Executive Staff of the Wikimedia Foundation wants to de-sysop SB Johnny and block Privatemusings, then let them collectively do it, and that will be something to abide by.
But what Jimbo's doing there now... is not to be borne patiently.
Consider this your call to action. If you sit idly by on this one, you are little more than a Jimbo crony.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 16th March 2010, 2:47pm)
I think now would be an excellent time for any of the level-headed Wikimedians who have ever participated in Wikiversity, to come to the aid of SB Johnny and Privatemusings and the integrity of the independent Wikiversity system, and call for Jimbo to be asked to kindly leave them alone.
If the Board or the Executive Staff of the Wikimedia Foundation wants to de-sysop SB Johnny and block Privatemusings, then let them collectively do it, and that will be something to abide by.
But what Jimbo's doing there now... is not to be borne patiently.
Consider this your call to action. If you sit idly by on this one, you are little more than a Jimbo crony.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Doesn't mean I won't opine, but you've put up a false dichotomy. There are lots of editors who are far more than cronies that may end up not commenting.
I think now would be an excellent time for any of the level-headed Wikimedians who have ever participated in Wikiversity, to come to the aid of SB Johnny and Privatemusings and the integrity of the independent Wikiversity system, and call for Jimbo to be asked to kindly leave them alone.
If the Board or the Executive Staff of the Wikimedia Foundation wants to de-sysop SB Johnny and block Privatemusings, then let them collectively do it, and that will be something to abide by.
But what Jimbo's doing there now … is not to be borne patiently.
Consider this your call to action. If you sit idly by on this one, you are little more than a Jimbo crony.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Doesn't mean I won't opine, but you've put up a false dichotomy. There are lots of editors who are far more than cronies that may end up not commenting.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
Shorter Jimbo Wales: I'm asserting authority I arguably don't possess (but I'm not a dictator) in a manner even I agree is inappropriate (but screw you), to force a resolution which cannot be explained or codified (but you better start "getting it"), and if you don't all grow a pair and agree with me I'll kill you (but I'd rather not).
Hey Wikiversity - I think there's a lesson in there for you.
Shorter Jimbo Wales: I'm asserting authority I arguably don't possess (but I'm not a dictator) in a manner even I agree is inappropriate (but screw you), to force a resolution which cannot be explained or codified (but you better start "getting it"), and if you don't all grow a pair and agree with me I'll kill you (but I'd rather not).
Hey Wikiversity — I think there's a lesson in there for you.
Don't knock mascot contests - Wikipedia's mascot competition produced some of the most entertaining stupidity in the entire history of the project. Anyway, this is a site whose mascot is a pixellated Panama hat; I don't think we're in a position to judge.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 16th March 2010, 12:47pm)
I think now would be an excellent time for any of the level-headed Wikimedians who have ever participated in Wikiversity, to come to the aid of SB Johnny and Privatemusings and the integrity of the independent Wikiversity system, and call for Jimbo to be asked to kindly leave them alone.
If the Board or the Executive Staff of the Wikimedia Foundation wants to de-sysop SB Johnny and block Privatemusings, then let them collectively do it, and that will be something to abide by.
But what Jimbo's doing there now... is not to be borne patiently.
Consider this your call to action. If you sit idly by on this one, you are little more than a Jimbo crony.
I don't think it will do much good. We can at last see how embarrassed some people on WP really were by the Limey BLP penetration. They wanted to stomp somebody for that. So here's somebody talking about it, and they can finally label them a "troll" and do their thing.
Before this, I actually didn't think Limey had "gotten through." But I think I've changed my mind. It hurt them. They don't want it mentioned. Not ever. Not by anyone.
Don't knock mascot contests — Wikipedia's mascot competition produced some of the most entertaining stupidity in the entire history of the project. Anyway, this is a site whose mascot is a pixellated Panama hat; I don't think we're in a position to judge.
Don't knock mascot contests - Wikipedia's mascot competition produced some of the most entertaining stupidity in the entire history of the project. Anyway, this is a site whose mascot is a pixellated Panama hat; I don't think we're in a position to judge.
It could be a Equador/Panama white straw hat. I think we need a proper white felt Stetson cowboy hat, with a clear cattleman's crease, so they know we're the Good Guys.
Don't knock mascot contests - Wikipedia's mascot competition produced some of the most entertaining stupidity in the entire history of the project. Anyway, this is a site whose mascot is a pixellated Panama hat; I don't think we're in a position to judge.
It could be a Equador/Panama white straw hat. I think we need a proper white felt Stetson cowboy hat, with a clear cattleman's crease, so they know we're the Good Guys.
--Tom Mix
C'mon! Cowboy up, cupcakes, and put on the black hat with pride, you've earned it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 12:29am)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 16th March 2010, 7:16pm)
Anyway, this is a site whose mascot is a pixellated Panama hat; I don't think we're in a position to judge.
That's not a mascot... it's a motif. A mascot is, by definition, a "person or animal."
OED: "Mascot: A person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck; (now) esp. something carried or displayed for this purpose. Also: a thing used to symbolize a particular event or organization; an emblem."
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 12:20am)
Pssst, Eva, I won't tell anyone, but your new avatar looks suspiciously like a Georgia O'Keefe creation. — Ja, Ja, It Really Does
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 16th March 2010, 5:08pm)
QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Tue 16th March 2010, 6:23pm)
Shorter Jimbo Wales: I'm asserting authority I arguably don't possess (but I'm not a dictator) in a manner even I agree is inappropriate (but screw you), to force a resolution which cannot be explained or codified (but you better start "getting it"), and if you don't all grow a pair and agree with me I'll kill you (but I'd rather not).
Hey Wikiversity — I think there's a lesson in there for you.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 4,306
So Greg posted on the WV 'community review' page - criticising Jimbo - he was banned (I think for 'cross wiki issues') - Jimbo's requested a private chat about conditions for my unblocking (well, he's said that I should get in touch privately), and I've just posted the formal wikiversity 'unblock' request at my talk page, along with some thoughts, and a message I've sent Jimbo.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined:
Member No.: 12,473
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Wed 17th March 2010, 12:51am)
So Greg posted on the WV 'community review' page - criticising Jimbo - he was banned (I think for 'cross wiki issues') - Jimbo's requested a private chat about conditions for my unblocking (well, he's said that I should get in touch privately), and I've just posted the formal wikiversity 'unblock' request at my talk page, along with some thoughts, and a message I've sent Jimbo.
we'll see what's round the next bend.....
Why do you call them breaching experiments? More properly, most of what the page was talking about was penetration testing, which I think carries more positive connotations in the nerdy communities like Wikipedia.
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Wed 17th March 2010, 12:51am)
So Greg posted on the WV 'community review' page — criticising Jimbo — he was banned (I think for 'cross wiki issues') — Jimbo's requested a private chat about conditions for my unblocking (well, he's said that I should get in touch privately), and I've just posted the formal wikiversity 'unblock' request at my talk page, along with some thoughts, and a message I've sent Jimbo.
we'll see what's round the next bend …
Why do you call them breaching experiments? More properly, most of what the page was talking about was penetration testing, which I think carries more positive connotations in the nerdy communities like Wikipedia.
I've always called it "Design for Testing" and insisted that a CQI project would be doing it's own testing on a continuing basis all the time, but I've heard the term "breaching experiment" in military contexts, I think.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It will be interesting to me to see whether Wikiversitians will lay down and take it in the butt from Jimbo, or whether they will ultimately wear him down with unemotional, but firm, rejection of his childish tactics.
Indeed, removing a reasonable opinion of a "banned" user that he blocked only 2 minutes earlier.
He's really just a parody of himself at this point. Somebody call Bill Shatner. The WMF needs a new Chairman Emeritus.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Finally noticed this thread and watched the circus video at WV. My condolences to all involved. I now see more clearly the problem, or, more accurately, where the solution is not. It's not with Jimbo. At all, and he may have nothing whatever to contribute. Maybe not even a server. That was a thoroughly embarrassing display. Congratulations, SB Johnny, on your courage and integrity. Legally, Jimbo had the authority to do what he did. But.... One would think that by now, he'd understand how to lead rather than bully. He wasn't interested in consensus, it was clear. His way or the highway. I suggest the High Way. It can be done.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
Step 1: Tell Jimbo he can either contribute constructively or take a hike.
Step 2: If Jimbo refuses, block him for disruption.
Step 3: If Step 2 causes some kind of massive controversy, then you've set up a good test of Jimbo's authority and influence. Are people still prepared to suffer through whatever mischief the sole parasite chooses to cause? In 2010, will they still defend him?
After all, if Wikiversity had the will and fortitude to get rid of him, maybe the rest of us could too.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Tue 16th March 2010, 10:01pm)
dunno really - probably picked it up from someone / somewhere else? (I'm also stupid enough to occasionally call them breeching experiments).
You're not actually breaching anything, are you? There's no security, no perimeter or frewall or other preventive functionality to penetrate.
What you're proposing here is response testing. How does the system respond to a problem? Will it respond at all, and if so, how long will it take, and will the response be appropriate and fair.
It isn't even an "experiment" - like Awbrey says, this sort of thing should be done on an ongoing basis, and would be in a professional software-development environment. Jimbo is only concerned with PR, and how negative PR might affect him personally in some way - he's never been a software guy or a researcher.
So yes, everyone should stop calling these things "breaching experiments" ASAP - that's only going to confuse the people who might actually care about keeping the system maintained. I suspect the term "breaching experiment" was coined by someone like David Gerard or Guy "JzG" Chapman, someone in the old-line cabal who understood that testing the system was antithetical to their goal of maintaining control.
Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on response testing, because it's a concept that's almost unique to open collaborative environments, and they don't want people to ask why they're not doing it.
We need to preserve this, in case the Man-Boy decides to make it "disappear".
QUOTE
Your behaviour in Wikiversity
Dear Mr. Wales, this is my second post on your talk page. So I hope, that you will answer it. I am very sad seeing your recent activity in here. If every Wikimedian will disagree with the way were wv is going, he will use a Meta to talk about the problem. So be so kind and follow the way of every other Wikipedia, please. Well, you are the founder of Wikipedia, but that does not nominate you to be upper than every simple Wikimedian.
You probably don't mind that your first blocking disrupted the English Wikiversity community and it looks like you don't think about your deeds in here, and what you are saying. Your deeds in here are disrupting Wikiversity community again and your words about stopping the project endamage the project itself. In this case, I hope the Wikimedia Foundation will dissociate from you.
So this is my warning to you Mr. Wales, if you will continue to violate and destabilize the project, I should block you. So I hope that after the potential provision from my side to Mr. Jimmy Wales, other custodians will behave like a man/woman and not continue of blocking. If so it is your way…--Juan de VojnÃkov 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not my intention to destabilize the project, it is my intention to support those who want to see it flourish and succeed. The first step toward that is to draw a firm line against trolling.--Jimbo Wales 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Juan has actually been working on Wikiversity for a long, long time. It would be a great shame if Jimbo retaliated against him.
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Tue 16th March 2010, 10:01pm)
dunno really — probably picked it up from someone / somewhere else? (I'm also stupid enough to occasionally call them breeching experiments).
You're not actually breaching anything, are you? There's no security, no perimeter or firewall or other preventive functionality to penetrate.
What you're proposing here is response testing. How does the system respond to a problem? Will it respond at all, and if so, how long will it take, and will the response be appropriate and fair.
It isn't even an "experiment" — like Awbrey says, this sort of thing should be done on an ongoing basis, and would be in a professional software-development environment. Jimbo is only concerned with PR, and how negative PR might affect him personally in some way — he's never been a software guy or a researcher.
So yes, everyone should stop calling these things "breaching experiments" ASAP — that's only going to confuse the people who might actually care about keeping the system maintained. I suspect the term "breaching experiment" was coined by someone like David Gerard or Guy "JzG" Chapman, someone in the old-line cabal who understood that testing the system was antithetical to their goal of maintaining control.
Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on response testing, because it's a concept that's almost unique to open collaborative environments, and they don't want people to ask why they're not doing it.
It's apparently a fairly standard term in psych- and soci-ology — see this search : with and without quotes — and I already posted one or two choicer links above.
I'm really surprised that I never ran into it before, as I used to read a lot of that ethnography literature — well, back in the last millennium.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 17th March 2010, 5:58am)
Step 1: Tell Jimbo he can either contribute constructively or take a hike.
Step 2: If Jimbo refuses, block him for disruption.
Step 3: If Step 2 causes some kind of massive controversy, then you've set up a good test of Jimbo's authority and influence. Are people still prepared to suffer through whatever mischief the sole parasite chooses to cause? In 2010, will they still defend him?
Shall we start placing bets? At this point I think I have to put my bets on Jimbo. More specifically, on the entire project being dissolved if it decides to go that way. If the project wants otherwise while shedding the influence of Wales, it needs to 1) come up with a very good justification of its existence; and 2) come up with a governance structure which can achieve those justified goals. I can't foresee 1 happening, let alone 2. A wiki university? It's just not a very good idea.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Jimbo's unprecedented intervention in WV (at the behest of FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua and IDCab in general) a coupla summers ago dramatically destabilized the project by undermining and otherwise manipulating the long-standing leaders of that project. All of that occurred before ArbCom took up the case that ultimately slapped down FeloniousMonk for egregious abuse of power. The wounds from that episode have long festered, and the unresolved underlying issues have predictably resurfaced in this latest round of the unfinished drama.
It comes down to the original issue, namely a critical review of managerial ethics in WMF-sponsored projects. To put it bluntly, these projects could not survive an authentic and independent inquiry into the ethical questions that have long plagued WP and its sister projects.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Half a century ago, a pioneering sociologist and cultural anthropologist by the name of Victor Turner proposed an anthropological model of the Social Drama that predictably ensues in the aftermath of a breach of expectations in the prevailing social norms.
I suppose Turner's model of Social Drama is not widely understood or appreciated outside of the academic circles frequented by professional sociologists and cultural anthropologists.
But Wikiculture is a never-ending source of episodes that reify and exemplify Turner's classical analysis and model of Social Drama.
These recurring episodes demonstrate the extent to which the denizens of Wikiculture fail time and again to learn the core lessons that emerge from the annals of human knowledge.
Half a century ago, a pioneering sociologist and cultural anthropologist by the name of Victor Turner proposed an anthropological model of the Social Drama that predictably ensues in the aftermath of a breach of expectations in the prevailing social norms.
I suppose Turner's model of Social Drama is not widely understood or appreciated outside of the academic circles frequented by professional sociologists and cultural anthropologists.
But Wikiculture is a never-ending source of episodes that reify and exemplify Turner's classical analysis and model of Social Drama.
These recurring episodes demonstrate the extent to which the denizens of Wikiculture fail time and again to learn the core lessons that emerge from the annals of human knowledge.
One of the forces driving the dynamics of infernal recurrence is the Horror Of Reflection (HOR). The compulsions of conspicuous accumulation demand that Wikipediots "count coup" or "tag turf" on subjects like Scientific Method, Learning Organization, Critical Thinking, or even Breaching Experiment, but the very idea of reading, really reading their own articles, much less apply these precious bits of instruction to themselves — The HOR !!! The HOR !!!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I find that the supreme irony of the whole enterprise. What is the point of compiling the sum of all human knowledge if those doing the compilation cannot put that knowledge to constructive use within the scope of their very own enterprise?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Plan
1. Promote independent WV mailing list. Use it to form steering committee.
2. Secure off-site independent backups of all WV content.
3. Develop consensus response to WMF. Negotiate relationship.
4. Consensus means maximized agreement. It does not mean debate until everyone is exhausted. Set up functional decision-making systems such that decisions are broadly supported.
5. If WMF is intransigent, fork them.
6. The community is the project. The relationship between the community and WMF is voluntary.
7. The only reason that WMF appears to have power is that it is coherently organized and the community is not. The WP oligarchy has consistently crushed efforts to create on-wiki structures that could become coherent.
8. Therefore such structures must be off-wiki.
9. It is not in the interest of the WMF nor of the community to fork unless differences are not reconcilable.
10. Therefore, do not trust that Jimbo's claim of WMF support will be sustained.
Start creating efficient, comprehensive and sustainable communication structures.
Promote independent WV mailing list. Use it to form steering committee.
Secure off-site independent backups of all WV content.
Develop consensus response to WMF. Negotiate relationship.
Consensus means maximized agreement. It does not mean debate until everyone is exhausted. Set up functional decision-making systems such that decisions are broadly supported.
If WMF is intransigent, fork them.
The community is the project. The relationship between the community and WMF is voluntary.
The only reason that WMF appears to have power is that it is coherently organized and the community is not. The WP oligarchy has consistently crushed efforts to create on-wiki structures that could become coherent.
Therefore such structures must be off-wiki.
It is not in the interest of the WMF nor of the community to fork unless differences are not reconcilable.
Therefore, do not trust that Jimbo's claim of WMF support will be sustained.
Start creating efficient, comprehensive and sustainable communication structures.
Why put up with the Wiki Medea Fumblation at all?
This is all something you could do on Wikipedia Review.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 17th March 2010, 3:18pm)
Plan
1. Promote independent WV mailing list. Use it to form steering committee.
2. Secure off-site independent backups of all WV content.
3. Develop consensus response to WMF. Negotiate relationship.
4. Consensus means maximized agreement. It does not mean debate until everyone is exhausted. Set up functional decision-making systems such that decisions are broadly supported.
5. If WMF is intransigent, fork them.
6. The community is the project. The relationship between the community and WMF is voluntary.
7. The only reason that WMF appears to have power is that it is coherently organized and the community is not. The WP oligarchy has consistently crushed efforts to create on-wiki structures that could become coherent.
8. Therefore such structures must be off-wiki.
9. It is not in the interest of the WMF nor of the community to fork unless differences are not reconcilable.
10. Therefore, do not trust that Jimbo's claim of WMF support will be sustained.
Start creating efficient, comprehensive and sustainable communication structures.
An interesting plan, but are you even a contributor on Wikiversity? I couldn't find your userpage. My apologies in advance if I just missed it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
After Jimbo trashed the original WV pages on managerial ethics, I ported the core content over to Google Knol. Since then I have written some two dozen articles on Google Knol, all without the slighted tinge of political drama that has plagued WP, WV, and sister projects under the WMF umbrella. In particular, I could write articles that included my own original research without constraint. It occurs to me that those who were marginalized or disgruntled by the politics and drama of WP can find fresh air at Google Knol, along with a much better user interface.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 1:19am)
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Tue 16th March 2010, 10:01pm)
dunno really - probably picked it up from someone / somewhere else? (I'm also stupid enough to occasionally call them breeching experiments).
You're not actually breaching anything, are you? There's no security, no perimeter or frewall or other preventive functionality to penetrate.
Not just that but it in no way breaches WMF's terms of service for the site. At most it "violates" some previous posted other user generated content in the form of self proclaimed "rules" and "policies" that are entitled to exactly as much deference as what ever is posted by the "breecher."
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Henry David Thoreau famously wrote about "The Duty of Civil Disobedience" -- a concept that Gandhi and King dramatically reified in the 20th Century. Of course, on Wikipedia, there is such an organic hodge-podge of mutually inconsistent rules that almost any contribution can be interpreted as a breach of some obscure rule or another. In Wikiculture, the reactions to such breaches typically run to blocking, baleeting, desysopping, and banning, all of which practices breach the expectations of those naive and foolish enough to imagine that Wikiculture operates within the paradigm of modern managerial ethics.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
By posting an unblock request in which you ask the blocking admin to support his action with evidence and reasoning, subject to academic peer review, you are trolling by asking a question which the respondent does not wish to answer. As you know, trolling is Jimbo's number one reason for intervening on WV, to stop those who would dare ask questions that he prefers not to answer.
We need to preserve this, in case the Man-Boy decides to make it "disappear".
QUOTE
Your behaviour in Wikiversity
Dear Mr. Wales, this is my second post on your talk page. So I hope, that you will answer it. I am very sad seeing your recent activity in here. If every Wikimedian will disagree with the way were wv is going, he will use a Meta to talk about the problem. So be so kind and follow the way of every other Wikipedia, please. Well, you are the founder of Wikipedia, but that does not nominate you to be upper than every simple Wikimedian.
You probably don't mind that your first blocking disrupted the English Wikiversity community and it looks like you don't think about your deeds in here, and what you are saying. Your deeds in here are disrupting Wikiversity community again and your words about stopping the project endamage the project itself. In this case, I hope the Wikimedia Foundation will dissociate from you.
So this is my warning to you Mr. Wales, if you will continue to violate and destabilize the project, I should block you. So I hope that after the potential provision from my side to Mr. Jimmy Wales, other custodians will behave like a man/woman and not continue of blocking. If so it is your way…--Juan de VojnÃkov 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not my intention to destabilize the project, it is my intention to support those who want to see it flourish and succeed. The first step toward that is to draw a firm line against trolling.--Jimbo Wales 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Juan has actually been working on Wikiversity for a long, long time. It would be a great shame if Jimbo retaliated against him.
I would love to see a few samurai fall on their swords by blocking Jimbo and being in turn blocked, until it actually does get to be a WMF board meeting issue. Where-upon 10 people are actually going to have to sit down and discuss the LAME question of whether it is now a Foundation Issue if Jimbo throws his weight around to block some dweeb on Wikiversity without community consensus (since he's threatened anybody who UN-blocks, this obviously is not a consensus issue). "Full support of the foundation," my ass. An email to Sue: "Sue, baby, can I do what I want on Wikiversity? You now how much I respect you. Wink."
There has been a WMF board coup attempt before against Jimbo, I believe. It narrowly failed. It would take 6 out of 10 votes to get him off the board, following which we will be in 1215, at Runnymeade. If they ever let Jimbo back on, he'll be a much NICER Black King Jimbo.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 11:22am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 17th March 2010, 11:18am)
Plan —
Promote independent WV mailing list. Use it to form steering committee.
Secure off-site independent backups of all WV content.
Develop consensus response to WMF. Negotiate relationship.
Consensus means maximized agreement. It does not mean debate until everyone is exhausted. Set up functional decision-making systems such that decisions are broadly supported.
If WMF is intransigent, fork them.
The community is the project. The relationship between the community and WMF is voluntary.
The only reason that WMF appears to have power is that it is coherently organized and the community is not. The WP oligarchy has consistently crushed efforts to create on-wiki structures that could become coherent.
Therefore such structures must be off-wiki.
It is not in the interest of the WMF nor of the community to fork unless differences are not reconcilable.
Therefore, do not trust that Jimbo's claim of WMF support will be sustained.
Start creating efficient, comprehensive and sustainable communication structures.
Why put up with the Wiki Medea Fumblation at all?
This is all something you could do on Wikipedia Review.
Jon Awbrey
We're thinking about it, actually.
I have copies of the deleted pages now if Greg has a spot for them.
...This assignment calls for you to breach a social norm, either by doing something one is not supposed to do or by not doing something that is considered standard behavior in that particular situation.
The key word there is "social," is it not? "Vandalism," particularly of an intentionally temporary nature, doesn't imply the breaching of a social norm on Wikipedia - vandalism is an integral part of their overall business strategy. I suppose you could argue that the self-reversion of the edits (after the "experiment" is over) amounts to "not doing something that is considered standard behavior," given that standard behavior is to privately smirk over your more interesting vandal-edits for as long as possible until someone else comes along and changes them, but that seems like a minor quibble to me.
Under this guy's (Dr. Darcey Leach's?) definition, a breaching experiment on Wikipedia would probably involve more of a community-interaction scenario, such as "what happens if I register a new account, do everything required to become an administrator, pass my RfA, and then begin to make ethical governance proposals?" I mean, yeah, we've already seen what happens there (the proposals fail), but in any case, what they were discussing on Wikiversity would have had little to do with social interactivity - in fact, the success of such an experiment could almost be measured precisely by how little interaction takes place between the experimenters and other WP users.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 4:01pm)
What happens if I register a new account, do everything required to become an administrator, pass my RfA, and then begin to make ethical governance proposals?
Precisely so, Somey. That would be the single most onerous breach of the normative expectations of long-standing Wikiculture, as established by Jimbo Wales.
To my mind, the issue of managerial ethics is one that threatens to drive a stake through the heart of Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 17th March 2010, 3:45pm)
We're thinking about it, actually.
I have copies of the deleted pages now if Greg has a spot for them.
Wikipedia Review is open and waiting for them, at least as a temporary holding space, so that people can review just what was so terribly problematic about these pages.
You can register yourself and go to town, or if you want, e-mail me the wikitext, and I'll build a special Directory for this content.
This assignment calls for you to breach a social norm, either by doing something one is not supposed to do or by not doing something that is considered standard behavior in that particular situation.
The key word there is "social," is it not? "Vandalism," particularly of an intentionally temporary nature, doesn't imply the breaching of a social norm on Wikipedia — vandalism is an integral part of their overall business strategy. I suppose you could argue that the self-reversion of the edits (after the "experiment" is over) amounts to "not doing something that is considered standard behavior," given that standard behavior is to privately smirk over your more interesting vandal-edits for as long as possible until someone else comes along and changes them, but that seems like a minor quibble to me.
Under this guy's (Dr. Darcey Leach's?) definition, a breaching experiment on Wikipedia would probably involve more of a community-interaction scenario, such as "what happens if I register a new account, do everything required to become an administrator, pass my RfA, and then begin to make ethical governance proposals?" I mean, yeah, we've already seen what happens there (the proposals fail), but in any case, what they were discussing on Wikiversity would have had little to do with social interactivity — in fact, the success of such an experiment could almost be measured precisely by how little interaction takes place between the experimenters and other WP users.
Measured by the Norms In Practice (NIPs) of Wiki-Punk culture, the load of Wiki-Power you bear is directly proportional to the number of Norms In Theory (NITs) you can breach with impunity.
You might say that all the Big Guns in Wikiputia are Breach-Loaders.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined:
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 17th March 2010, 3:28pm)
It would take 6 out of 10 votes to get him off the board,
It would actually just take five to defeat a motion to re-appoint him (WMF Bylaws Article IV Section 3 (F)), though I don't think one of those is due until January 2011.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Wikiversity has long suffered from a fragile and inchoate community consensus regarding its mission, norms, and methods of self-governance. The lack of a well-designed and comprehensive community consensus on governance policies and methods has left a gaping hole into which the dictatorial Wales has yet again come galumphing in to personally dictate the scope, content, and decision-making process of the project.
The irony here is that Wales has personally initiated the very kind of breaching experiment that PrivateMusings proposed to analyze in the generic abstract. If WV had codified and ratified its own community consensus on policies, practices, and methods of self-governance, the intervention of Wales would be seen as a dramatic breach of clearly expressed community norms. But since WV's own sense of internal community consensus has been so fragile and inchoate, the community is not well poised to react and respond to this breach in an efficient, unified, and functional manner.
So, to my mind, this crisis affords a classical "teachable moment" for the participants. What's at stake is the choice between living under a dictatorial regime where loyalty and obedience are paramount vs organizing a cohesive community model that is strong enough to sustain an independent philosophy and practice of academic inquiry governed by an agreed-upon protocol of scholarly ethics.
WikiVeristy was supposed to be a place that respected academic values.
And now we have a couple of supposedly adult people barging in and bossing everyone around — babbling on about "trolls" like it's every other word out of their mouths.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The destructive trolling is being done by Wales himself, with assistance by his most loyal sycophants. The question he is asking (that nobody really wants to have to answer) is, "Are you going to obey my dictates or not?"
At best, you will get a few of the weaker players making noises of appeasement to Jimbo, while leaving themselves as much wiggle room as possible to continue with their independent (and otherwise obscure) academic inquiries.
Wales has laid down an anankastic conditional (do as I say or else), where the "or else clause" is the threat to pull the plug on the whole project.
If it were up to me, I'd call his bluff. If and when he does pull the plug, I daresay the story would hit the mainstream press, bringing a fair amount of negative PR to WMF.
Wikiversity was supposed to be a place that respected academic discourse, academic freedom, and academic values. But now we hear the word "troll" being flung about like never before. I respectfully suggest that this form of argument — really more a scheme for argument blocking than anything else — has no place here.
"This is the second time that I'm aware of, in which Wikiversity has been hijacked by nonsense and unable to protect itself. That is bad, and Jimmy saying so is, IMO, the right thing to do." -- Sue Gardner
Both times it's been a scenario of reasonable people trying to understand and itemize the ethical considerations that surround the Wikimedia Foundation and its various projects, but notably the English Wikipedia. And both times, Jimmy's been uncomfortable with that. And now you're aligning yourself with his blatant characterization of the situation as "nonsense".
Sue, I had thought you were above it, but apparently you're drunk on the myth of Jimbo, too.
Greg
Meanwhile, Samuel Klein makes some legitimate points. I'm glad that I was able to participate with him in the most recent WMF Board of Trustees election process. He's a bit under the spell of trying to handle anything uncomfortable or difficult by "let's label it trolling, and then we can get rid of it"... but he seems to still have a bit of reasonableness left in him.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:22am)
I just delivered an e-mail to Sue Gardner:
QUOTE
"This is the second time that I'm aware of, in which Wikiversity has been hijacked by nonsense and unable to protect itself. That is bad, and Jimmy saying so is, IMO, the right thing to do." -- Sue Gardner
Both times it's been a scenario of reasonable people trying to understand and itemize the ethical considerations that surround the Wikimedia Foundation and its various projects, but notably the English Wikipedia. And both times, Jimmy's been uncomfortable with that. And now you're aligning yourself with his blatant characterization of the situation as "nonsense".
Sue, I had thought you were above it, but apparently you're drunk on the myth of Jimbo, too.
Greg
Not bad, but I think you probably lost her with the last half of the last sentence (even if true, for her it will only justify dismissing it).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:28am)
Not bad, but I think you probably lost her with the last half of the last sentence (even if true, for her it will only justify dismissing it).
Johnny, I lost her when she got to the From: field.
My key takeaway thus far from this whole Wikiversity flap is that Jimmy Wales is taking on the role of "discerning parent" and is equivalently treating the many equally capable adults on Wikiversity as "unruly children".
This would be extremely humiliating to me, were I an active contributor to that project.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
If you look at Jimbo's actions on WV since his first appearance there two summers ago, it was to summarily delete content on managerial ethics, to block or threaten to block myself, Dan Tobias, PrivateMusings, and Greg Kohs, to de-sysop SBJ, to twice threaten to shut down the project, and to refuse to allow his unilateral and dictatorial actions to be the subject of community review or reversal.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 18th March 2010, 2:52pm)
If you look at Jimbo's actions on WV since his first appearance there two summers ago, it was to summarily delete content on managerial ethics, to block or threaten to block myself, Dan Tobias, PrivateMusings, and Greg Kohs, to de-sysop SBJ, to twice threaten to shut down the project, and to refuse to allow his unilateral and dictatorial actions to be the subject of community review or reversal.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:38am)
Kohs - what did you honestly think their response would be to you posting in the conversation?
Depends who you mean by "they". Do you mean the faithful Wikiversity volunteers who are working at trying to build something useful?
Or, do you mean the guys who are coming over from "their" superior wiki project and barging in on this one.
Here's an exercise for you. JzG just weighed in on Wikiversity today. Prior to that, how many Wikiversity pages had he ever edited, and what was his primary objective in that editing?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th March 2010, 11:59am)
Here's an exercise for you. JzG just weighed in on Wikiversity today. Prior to that, how many Wikiversity pages had he ever edited, and what was his primary objective in that editing?
That's actually a little tricky to answer, since his first visits were unsigned IP edits in which he deleted content related to the material on managerial ethics. The IP, of course, corresponded to his personal domain, bearing his real name.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th March 2010, 3:59pm)
Depends who you mean by "they". Do you mean the faithful Wikiversity volunteers who are working at trying to build something useful?
Or, do you mean the guys who are coming over from "their" superior wiki project and barging in on this one.
Here's an exercise for you. JzG just weighed in on Wikiversity today. Prior to that, how many Wikiversity pages had he ever edited, and what was his primary objective in that editing?
You can feel in the blank. Whatever corner that could send a negative response towards you - did you think that there wouldn't be one?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:33am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:28am)
Not bad, but I think you probably lost her with the last half of the last sentence (even if true, for her it will only justify dismissing it).
Johnny, I lost her when she got to the From: field.
Heh, really did "lol" on that one.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:33am)
My key takeaway thus far from this whole Wikiversity flap is that Jimmy Wales is taking on the role of "discerning parent" and is equivalently treating the many equally capable adults on Wikiversity as "unruly children".
This would be extremely humiliating to me, were I an active contributor to that project.
Yup. Hence my disinterest in responding "on wiki" to this nonsense.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th March 2010, 3:59pm)
Depends who you mean by "they". Do you mean the faithful Wikiversity volunteers who are working at trying to build something useful?
Or, do you mean the guys who are coming over from "their" superior wiki project and barging in on this one.
Here's an exercise for you. JzG just weighed in on Wikiversity today. Prior to that, how many Wikiversity pages had he ever edited, and what was his primary objective in that editing?
You can feel in the blank. Whatever corner that could send a negative response towards you - did you think that there wouldn't be one?
When I have something to say on a project where I am a contributor (even if only modestly) in good standing, I feel I have the privilege of saying it (as long as it's politely worded), without fear of what "negative response towards me" will arise.
...people who clearly aren't here primarily to contribute to the goals of Wikiversity, but rather primarily to disrupt...
I wonder how we square away this viewpoint with this, this, and this? Do I really seem to be so disruptive to most Wikiversity regulars? How do we get an RfC on that?
Has Jimmy Wales EVER contributed anything of substance to Wikiversity? Or, does he only step in when he sees something he doesn't like and "nurtures" the goals of the project by putting a stop to this disliked thing?
He is very much like an Old Testament version of the Judeo-Christian God.
"I created all of you people, you know, and while I love you, if you keep worshiping bronze and golden idols other than me, I'm going vaporize your cities, and if you so much as look back at the carnage I wreak, I will turn you into a pillar of salt. Or, worse, desysop you."
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
It's pretty arrogant to presume to know the goals and intentions of others. It's even more arrogant to falsely impute goals to others without a shred of evidence to support such a haphazard theory of mind regarding another person's beliefs, desires, or intentions.
It's pretty arrogant to presume to know the goals and intentions of others. It's even more arrogant to falsely impute goals to others without a shred of evidence to support such a haphazard theory of mind regarding another person's beliefs, desires, or intentions.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
It's astonishing how the same old practices persist, even after they have been diagnosed and exposed as ungrounded flights of fancy.
When a person repeats the same kind of falsehood over and over, one is tempted to conclude that they are not intentionally lying, but profoundly self-deluded.
Jon or Milton, do you know of any reliable way to distinguish the two cases -- to determine if a person is 1) intentionally lying or 2) profoundly self-deluded?
Other sources of guidance will be the myriad of policies at universities on research involving human subjects, which will have useful and well-tested language barring projects which will disrupt people's work without their consent.
It's astonishing how the same old practices persist, even after they have been diagnosed and exposed as ungrounded flights of fancy.
When a person repeats the same kind of falsehood over and over, one is tempted to conclude that they are not intentionally lying, but profoundly self-deluded.
Jon or Milton, do you know of any reliable way to distinguish the two cases -- to determine if a person is 1) intentionally lying or 2) profoundly self-deluded?
We've discussed this many times before, of course.
I think I once gave a definition of a Cult Leader as a Con Man who Truly Believes his own Spiel.
But when it comes to the hornèd dilemma of telling a Fool from a Liar, I think the knot-cutter you're looking for here is called Buridan's Ass.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
As I recall, the arrival of Cary Bass, Jimbo Wales, and the Goons of IDCab disrupted our work in Wikiversity on Managerial Ethics, and they not only did so without our consent, they did so over our vociferous objections.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
As I recall, Buridan's Ass died of thirst of hunger, being unable to decide which of two alternative attractions to pursue.
But having posed the question of distinguishing a fool from a liar, it occurred to me that my own favorite method -- a Socratic dialogue -- is not available here, as anyone who dares to ask questions of Jimbo in the manner of Socrates would be immediately branded a troll and sent packing.
A propos of Greg's analogy comparing Jimbo to the deity of the Old Testament, such a refusal to respond to philosophically challenging questions would correspond to the 11th Commandment, Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to any test.
As I recall, Buridan's Ass died of thirst of hunger, being unable to decide which of two alternative attractions to pursue.
But having posed the question of distinguishing a fool from a liar, it occurred to me that my own favorite method — a Socratic dialogue — is not available here, as anyone who dares to ask questions of Jimbo in the manner of Socrates would be immediately branded a troll and sent packing.
The same logic applies to the pseudo-problem of trying decide whether to follow a fool or a liar.
By the way, you didn't happen to read the end of that Socrates story, did you?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Jimbo on Wikiversity)
I think it worthwhile to note that as Wikiversity grows, it will attract its own homegrown trolls, who will create projects not just to annoy Wikipedians, but to annoy and embarrass people here.--Jimbo Wales 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In the annals of bloody drama, the most fundamental antagonism is the one that pits two characters with complementary fears. One character has Fear of Humiliation as his dominant fear. The other one has Fear of Annihilation as his dominant fear.
The drama on WV is shaping up as yet another instance of this hoary tragedy. It dates back to Cain and Abel, and is repeated in every generation in political history and in fiction.
In the end, the authentic scholars on WV will be annihilated, and those left holding the blood-soaked sword will be humiliated when the sad story is finally told.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:52am)
If you look at Jimbo's actions on WV since his first appearance there two summers ago, it was to summarily delete content on managerial ethics, to block or threaten to block myself, Dan Tobias, PrivateMusings, and Greg Kohs, to de-sysop SBJ, to twice threaten to shut down the project, and to refuse to allow his unilateral and dictatorial actions to be the subject of community review or reversal.
Yeah, but did he do anything that was a problem?
Look, if everyone who doesn't like what he did leaves or is blocked or just decides to lay low and eat shit, then he has unanimous consensus for his "work." If this leaves too few people behind to do the work of maintaining the site, then he can shut it down for "lack of interest." Eating shit, in case anyone hasn't noticed, tends to have a negative impact on motivation.
Hint: do not allow anyone to be excluded, per se, from a "community of interest." Not even if legitimately blocked, and certainly not if illegitimately blocked! If someone is disruptive in the outside structures it takes to do this, then they can be blocked from any structure where they are disruptive, according to local consensus (or trustee management!) there.
The community needs structures that it, and only it, controls. It will choose trustees for that, and it will build multiple such structures so that any individual trustee can't run away with the marbles. This is what I know, in theory, how to do, based on study of organizations that have been seriously successful as bottom-up peer associations (far larger as to active members than Wikipedia, and far larger as to volunteer labor contributed per week, and with far higher levels of consensus), combined with emerging social decision-making technology that is harmless-by-design (and defaults to more traditional structures at worst; if it works, it simply makes finding true consensus faster).
There is an IRC channel for WikiVersity and a mailing list. Mailing lists are particularly useful if hosted elsewhere than under official organizational control (in this case, elsewhere than WMF servers and with independent owners), because mailing lists can be set up to be push, functioning like a phone tree, and any member of any mailing list can, from their own archive, recontact the active members of the list.
Multiple linked mailing lists can set up filtered information processing structures that keep the traffic from exceeding what any individual wishes to handle. All the way down to almost none.
Build bulletproof independent structures and make them very easy to belong to without getting massive traffic not of interest, and capable of negotiating deliberated consensus rapidly. Details are available.
This could be a major opportunity, or a flop. It depends on whether the problem is recognized as a structural one, by enough editors (uh, three? Or, at least, three who are influential?), or whether it is simply blamed on Jimbo. Jimbo isn't really the problem, folks, he's just, unfortunately, a symptom. We are the problem (except that I'm not an editor at WikiVersity, my comments are utterly generic. I would help if asked.)
We are the problem in that we have the only deep solution available to us, collectively, but we don't do the very minor work it would take. It's astonishingly simple, as to what it requires from each individual. That's the whole point, in fact. It has to be easy. Not a herculean effort. Fun, even.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 18th March 2010, 6:27pm)
The present moment is little more than a banal rerun of recurring mistakes in community organization and governance.
Yes. Predictable. What's not banal, though, would be an actual solution. Banal and normal is the opinion that nothing can be done.
I need to make something clear. I'm not proposing a revolution. I'm proposing that the community actually organize to find real consensus. I strongly suspect that the optimal solution is not to fork from WMF, but that wouldn't be my decision, it would be the community's decision, and probably would only result from a very stupid WMF intransigence.
From various noises that have been made, Jimbo (or the WMF) might actually welcome a response that showed that a community could take responsibility for itself. You have several thousand people donating significant time to WV? For that size of group, the funding for servers and server management is trivial, pocket change, compared to the value of the work they are putting in. It is only a juvenile dependence on the WMF for "support" that produces, then, a need for "Daddy" to intervene.
Wiki communities are what I call "Free Associations," in themselves. The site isn't a Free Association, it is legally owned, but FAs can have relationships with trustee organizations. The relationships are voluntary, and they are maintained because they are mutually beneficial. No FA sets itself up, consciously, to depend on a legal centrally-controlled organization, it violates FA principles. Nor does the FA exercise coercive control over any legal organization. (The board of WMF is actually responsible to the State of Florida, to make sure that uncovered debt does not accumulate and that donated funds are lawfully handled.) There are well-worked-out principles that work.
To take a phrase from what is probably one of the largest FAs, (over about 70 years old), the very model in my study, "FAs as such ought never be organized, but they may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve."
"organized." There is no legal organization that is the FA. It owns no property. It is simply a connected group of people who regularly communicate with each other, over some common interest, usually in small groups, but there can be large-scale structures for finding collective consensus; that consensus is never imposed down, though, it is expressive, not controlling over local activity.
"service boards." Corporations, needed to hold actual property or manage more than small, informal levels of funding. Classic FA service corporations do not accumulate property beyond a "prudent reserve," which is essentially enough money to shut down gracefully if the flow of donations falls below sustainable levels. This implements "direct responsibility," since if the corporation stops serving the FA members, they stop voluntarily supporting it and it does not have enough resources of its own to maintain itself.
I've described an overall FA service corporation, there is another kind, a special-purpose service corporation. An overall service corporation (which might have the FA name in its name) is by tradition bound to not solicit outside donations, such as corporate funding, because of the possible corrupting influence. But a special-purpose corporation, which is kept rigorously separate from the overall FA, is independent and can solicit such donations for its special purposes. By being a member of the FA and by contributing to the overall FA service corporation, you are not thereby supporting the special-purpose corporation, you can favor it or oppose it and it does not affect your relationship with the overall FA. A special corporation simply reflects the fact that sets of members of the FA have not lost their right to organize independently!
"committees." Small-scale informal decision-making structures that only affect themselves, not the FA as a whole. Example would be a committee to hold a Meetup in some location.
Most people don't have experience with these large FAs directly, though many do, obviously (they really are large, I'd not be surprised to see the largest have extended membership of up to 5 or 10% of the population in the U.S. It's hard to measure, because of the informality and rigorous local autonomy, as well as a tradition of anonymity -- which has many functions, among them, that no individual represents the FA.)
The corporations have traditional board control. Legally, the board may elect itself, but traditionally, when the FA is mature enough, election process is held and the board then elects those recommended. It has the right to refuse, but almost never does. Pretty stupid to spit in the face of those who donate all your support, unless there is a really good reason! But WMF obtains support outside of the community, so members of the community are functioning as "voluntary servants" of WMF. WMF does not depend on them, directly, and as long as enough such servants are left to do the basic work, WMF can ignore the community. It's a classic organizational model, to be sure. Not unusual. And not conducive to an awake community that takes responsibility for itself. Not what I'd set up for wiki governance. But it's what was done.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the Wikiversitans declined to construct and ratify a community consensus on policies, practices, and methods of self-governance. That left them wide open to intervention by Jimbo and his loyal sycophants and henchman.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
They're only avoidable in theory, not in practice.
In practice, most members of the species (Homo Schleppians) are too oblivious to avoid repeating the well-researched, well-documented, and widely publicized lessons of history.
They're only avoidable in theory, not in practice.
In practice, most members of the species (Homo Schleppians) are too oblivious to avoid repeating the well-researched, well-documented, and widely publicized lessons of history.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
I wasn't asked, but I'll essay an answer.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 18th March 2010, 2:35pm)
It's astonishing how the same old practices persist, even after they have been diagnosed and exposed as ungrounded flights of fancy.
When a person repeats the same kind of falsehood over and over, one is tempted to conclude that they are not intentionally lying, but profoundly self-deluded.
Very hard to tell, and I'm not sure it's necessary. And the two answers are not mutually exclusive. Someone intentionally lying, for example, might be profoundly self-deluded, and lying because they believe that if they don't lie, for reasons outside of their control, others will make a "mistake." My general sense is, though, that willful, conscious lying is fairly rare. What's more common is insincere action, where there is a hidden agenda that is not acknowledged, and even more common is self-delusion of some kind. Plus, of course, our judgment that someone else is deluded might be a delusion....
QUOTE
Jon or Milton, do you know of any reliable way to distinguish the two cases -- to determine if a person is 1) intentionally lying or 2) profoundly self-deluded?
There is one reliable way to approach the problem, which must start further back; the question assumes that the judge is not deluded. The approach is to seek consensus, step-by-step. I know of no way to short-circuit it. Polygraph? Maybe, but that would not detect delusion.
A common assumption on Wikipedia is that seeking consensus is impossible with "those trolls and POV-pushers," but I've participated in this where the disputes were religious and deep. It frequently takes a skilled facilitator who knows how to explore differences and find unity under them. I can do this in some circumstances, but don't consider myself a serious expert on it, but there are people who are. I'm sure these people have ended up on Wikipedia. What happened to them? Some of what they know how to do is written into the guidelines and policies, but the structures that would be needed have been interdicted for years.
This kind of consensus work is laborious, compared to what Wikipedians seem to have time for. I'll spend two hours writing a page or two, and the popular position is that it's a "tome" and people won't spend two minutes to read it. But real dispute resolution process of the kind I'm talking about takes place with about three people involved. It's impossible on a large scale, but once consensus is found in a small group, it can propagate, with increasing efficiency.
In the process, insincerity tends to come out and become visible, and the facilitator, a good one, will detect it. Often ethics require the facilitator to not disclose this, but if the discussions are public record, others can see it. A real dispute resolution structure would develop methods of handling DR failure that don't devolve too quickly into mass food fights.
Believe it or not, part of solutions would be voting, and the rules of deliberative process, i.e., parliamentary procedure. The way the wiki defined itself, it made these efficient tools unavailable, instead of finding ways to integrate them into the wiki model. The "sock puppet" problem is an illusion, the result of narrow assumptions about what would be possible. For example, "anyone can edit" requires, probably, allowing anonymous editing. But that doesn't mean that "anyone can vote." Voting could require a level of responsibility and identity verification that is higher. Wikipedia already recognizes this, high-level servants must disclose real identities. In a certain sense, they are the only actual voters whose votes have power.
Problem is how they are chosen. There are far better ways to chose optimal "representatives," known for a very long time. Didn't someone say how ironic it was that Wikipedia has been unable to use what is known in the field of social structuring?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 18th March 2010, 8:32pm)
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the Wikiversitans declined to construct and ratify a community consensus on policies, practices, and methods of self-governance. That left them wide open to intervention by Jimbo and his loyal sycophants and henchman.
Of course. Look, if you are surprised by this, you are naive. This lack of recognition of the fundamental problem is totally routine. It proceeds like clockwork, most of the time, from a lack of understanding as to how finding such a community consensus could happen.
Have you ever belonged to an organization, real-world, local, that runs by consensus? I've been involved with quite a few, and they take special conditions to work, and even with those conditions, if the group size goes over a certain number, the process becomes horrific if not structured carefully. And the knowledge of how to handle that structuring is not widespread.
So most people, with a little experience, think it impossible. Works on political science tend to state that the problem of scale in democracy is insoluble, that direct democracy is impossible on a large scale. They are correct, but they have neglected hybrid solutions, even though one was suggested by Charles Dodgson, about 120 years ago. Call it direct representative democracy, as distinct from elected representative democracy. Dodgson's solution was just a tweak on Single transferable vote which addressed the problem that STV requires voters to rank candidates, sometimes all candidates, and most voters don't have the knowledge to do that. (Vote-for-one is more egalitarian, because most voters really only have enough information to know whom they most trust.) Dodgson may not have realized the full implications of what he proposed, but with the right rules, it would allow a representative body to be composed, of a manageable size, that is fully representative, instead of compromised, except for a very minimal form of compromise, and even that isn't totally necessary. This latter understanding is largely my own work, but it's been recognized. Too bad it hasn't been academically published yet. It will be, I'm sure.
Even short of that, the concept of an assembly where the "seats" exercised the votes they gained in a general election was proposed (in a referendum that failed, for predictable reasons) around a century ago. This isn't new stuff.
In any case, it need not take anything more to build consensus-finding structures than formalizing and documenting relationships between editors who have rapport with each other. People have this knee-jerk concept of "endless meetings" that "go nowhere." They have that from lots of experience on-wiki, right? Not the way to do it!
Nor is a single big mailing list a solution, those are just as frustrating, if not more frustrating, unless very well structured, which nobody does, because they don't realize the need.
Look, any serious WikiVersity editor who'd like to investigate this, contact me. I'll help. At the least, you'll learn something. If you can bring two along with you, then, it could actually start up. While there may be existing structures which can be used, it's possible, my experience is that they generally aren't flexible enough -- or are, paradoxically, stuck in being too flexible!
Whoever does this will be giving up personal control and seeking and serving consensus, which doesn't sacrifice personal identity and opinion, it merely abandons control. Those who already think they enjoy control are often not interested. Those who think that it will be too much work aren't interested. Those who like the status quo aren't interested -- even though it might be the only shot at making what works about the status quo survive. When groups are small and informal -- and mostly functional -- they don't think it's necessary because they can't forsee the problems of scale. Why bother when we can just talk this over already? And so when the problems of scale hit, it's too late! Unless someone starts up an independent consensus-seeking structure. No example is known to me where this was done with an existing organization, even though it's a totally obvious solution.
Instead, revolutions do take place, where an independent power structure is created to oppose a standing oligarchy. Highly disruptive and destructive, historically, the oligarchy typically has to get really, really bad, and, tragically, the new power structure is often as bad or even worse than what it replaced, since it really was just another form of the same thing.
It's a bizarre sort of reaction to someone who was merely adding information about a point of terminology, without even expressing an opinion on the issue at hand.
As a matter of fact, I begin to agree with Somey that "breaching experiment" may be the wrong term for the exercise in question — that maybe field testing, load testing, or road testing makes for a better description.
There's nobody but us crash-test dummies on this bus …
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 18th March 2010, 9:56pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 18th March 2010, 9:04pm)
Didn't someone say how ironic it was that Wikipedia has been unable to use what is known in the field of social structuring?
A lot of us have said it. But then the failure to employ best practices is not limited to the Wikisphere.
Kudos for reading all of that, assuming you did. But seriously: if you think "teh communitah" is just a figment of human nature, how do you think it can be changed?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I've written extensively about that for a decade and a half. There is an art and practice of community building that I first began studying over twenty years ago. See, for example, this article on Community Building, documenting my views first articulated in 1994.
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the remaining participants at WV allowed the prevailing norms to drift in the opposite direction from those outlined in the above cites.
I've written extensively about that for a decade and a half. There is an art and practice of community building that I first began studying over twenty years ago. See, for example, this article on Community Building, documenting my views first articulated in 1994.
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the remaining participants at WV allowed the prevailing norms to drift in the opposite direction from those outlined in the above cites.
Yeah, we all had big dreams about IT's potential — so what happened to turn IT into … well, you know?
There is something that remains to be explained here, something too deep in the nature of the human for tech to touch.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I think it boils down to the desire (and struggle) for power and control.
Wikiculture is hardly novel in this regard, but unlike political history, where most of us are non-participating observers far removed from the time and place of notable power struggles, Wikiland invites young and inexperienced players to (anonymously) play the game.
I can't say from personal experience what it feels like to be drunk with power, but it occurs to me that Wikipedia demonstrates the kind of recurring political and social drama that arises when various actors become intoxicated with the ephemeral feeling of exercising power over others.
Back in 2002, I used the phrase, lunatic social drama, to characterize the ridiculous kerfuffles that predictably arose time and again in these ill-structured online communities.
Those who would wield power try to immunize themselves from the charge of being dictatorial by reducing their dictates to a set of rules uniformly applicable to all (perhaps ironically excepting themselves). But those with a creative bent can easily devise something novel that the rules don't cover while still sending the control freak into paroxysms of agony. A culture in which the head of the Politburo cannot tolerate creativity is not a sustainable culture.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Both of them have asked JW questions that he probably would prefer not to have to answer.
Whether JW will go ballistic on them is doubtful, but there still remains the challenge of overturning Jimbo's dictatorial directives and restoring the standing of PM and SBJ.
Given that JW has signaled his intention to retain supreme authority, I don't see a practical way to save the project from castration.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 11:36am)
Interesting. It appears to be an alternative to WV, and free from the toxic oversight of WMF.
WikiEducator still has Erik the Rude to deal with, but he's a minor annoyance compared to the 24/7 ego trip of Jimmyland. WikiEducator's problem at the moment is mainly lack of exposure.
Online projects that are too small will never reach the critical mass required to make things happen, while those that are too large tend to become overwhelmed with interpersonal management issues. The open question is whether there is any space in between "too small" and "too large". In any case, WikiEducator is still firmly in the "too small" camp.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Perhaps if the cadre of disgruntled but otherwise conscientious scholars from WV migrate their work to WikiEducator, the prospects for everyone improve.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 11:54am)
Perhaps if the cadre of disgruntled but otherwise conscientious scholars from WV migrate their work to WikiEducator, the prospects for everyone improve.
I cannot speak to the conditions that exist currently at WikiEducator (although judging from Leigh Blackall's comments, I suspect they are not ideal), but I find it difficult to believe that they cold be much worse than those at Wikiversity.
Meanwhile, the Wikia, Inc. folks are busy fostering a good "Research Wikia". You'll especially want to note the logo in the upper left corner. Great company you're presiding over there, Jimbo. You clearly know a lot about research!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
I regret that the Wikipedia Review software does not allow me to layer contributions, or I could do something like I've done at the current Arbitration Enforcement discussion. It's really, really funny what's going on. I effectively retire, see the current RfAr/Clarification, and diff, and so they are now trying to figure out how to restrict me so I can't make more trouble, when all that was necessary was for a neutral admin to ask me whatever. And what's being proposed wouldn't have stopped me from doing what I was doing. All it took was Carcharoth opining that I'd violated my MYOB sanction, and it didn't matter that it was preposterous. Days before, I'd promised to comply with a clarification from any neutral admin, and I have no reason to think Carcharoth is out to get me. Having stopped all editing activity except the minimal as described, I'm thinking they really have gone mad. I'm not looking any more, except to pick up the links. I am no longer obligated, in any way, to respond to the insanity on Wikipedia, I've done all I could do, on-wiki. What a relief!
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 6:35am)
I've written extensively about that for a decade and a half. There is an art and practice of community building that I first began studying over twenty years ago. See, for example, this article on Community Building, documenting my views first articulated in 1994.
Nice. It contains some of the concepts I've been working with.
Well, an agreement is nice, again. What mechanisms would make this happen? In other words, the agreement was good. People will say it's good. They will even pledge to follow it. But if following it is too cumbersome, too difficult, becomes too boring, other aspects of life beckon, etc., what happens, and why are we surprised when it happens?
QUOTE
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the remaining participants at WV allowed the prevailing norms to drift in the opposite direction from those outlined in the above cites.
I'm rather isolated from academia; occasionally I meet and work to some extent with academics, it's mostly been about voting systems. What I see published in the field of decision-making technology is either over-complex and highly abstracted from practical reality, or very primitive. Perhaps I haven't seen the good stuff.
What seems to be missing is a practical knowledge of how to bring the best out of a community, long-term, sustainably. (Best means greatest common welfare, or most efficient and effective realization of a shared goal.) It's obviously a problem that human evolution faced, and systems evolved, and systems that worked well compared to others survived, and the others didn't. Some of this was built into "human nature," which is part "intrinsic," i.e., biological, genetic, and part a matter of tradition (which became law and formal process). There is a gap in what developed, a gap between small-scale process and what happens on a large scale.
A great deal is known and available about small-scale process. Basically, meet face-to-face with a common purpose, take the time to explore issues and differences, and consensus can be found, particularly if there are members (or invited facilitators) who know how to do it. It's a special skill.
But when the scale is large, these face-to-face meetings seem impossible. New England Town Meeting is a highly functional form of government when the town is small. Even in a small town, it breaks down if everyone shows up! But where those who care show up, and anyone can care, it works, and what makes it work even better is the fact that most of these people know each other, they talk together outside of Town Meeting. The real decision-making process is far more complex and sophisticated than the formal meeting structure, which itself follows deliberative process that is the common-law heritage of democratic societies. And which the wikiverse almost totally dumped, to its loss.
Small-scale tribal societies that maintained high levels of social unity could not compete with large-scale organized societies. Strong leaders were able to organize coherent activity across larger numbers of people, so while the consensus societies were individually stronger, the larger groups had so much more in the way of resources, human and otherwise, that they prevailed except in isolated areas. Hence the strong-leader model, which is still very, very prevalent, even democracies tend to use it. The United States decided to elect its King, and to restrain the King, but it's still largely a strong-leader model. Parliamentary systems of government represent more of a move toward democracy, with a prime minister -- it's still considered important to have a King -- being much more explicitly a servant of the parliament, an officer with dependent power, serving at will. If you made the parliament thoroughly and continuously representative, which could be done, it would be a true democracy, for the first time, on a large scale.
My work has been about realizing that the operating foundations of democracy are communication and the formation of consensus (which is a relative term, a measure, if you will, not an absolute, 100% consensus being an ideal goal, not a requirement; consensus begins at greater than 50% consent, the bare minimum, unstable and unreliable at the minimum), and that this can and should be separated from the levers of power. Power structures and advisory structures. In peer organizations, the ultimate power is in the peers, individually. Whatever they do coherently is what the "community" does. If they are asleep, those who are active will prevail. People need to sleep!
But if there is an emergency, if somehow the routine custodians of power are off on some dangerous tangent, is there a way for the community to wake itself up and act? There sure is! Friends call friends, they have direct contact information, they go and knock on the door, they rouse their neighbors.
To make this work on a large scale takes a bit of formalization, so that the network of connections can be seen and analyzed and lacunae found. That's what WP:PRX proposed. Not "voting."
But the Oligarchy greatly fears the formation of "cabals." They are aware that even a fairly small but well-organized "cabal" could dominate. They are aware that the ad-hoc structures of Wikipedia decision-making are highly vulnerable to the application of a very small amount of social pressure, an organized group could effectively rule or at least seriously disrupt. So it must try to prevent the formation of such groups. Hence the prohibition against canvassing, which prohibits the formation of broad consensus, because, to work on a large scale, the negotiation must be between groups. Wikipedia painted itself into a corner, and is actively preventing the formation of hybrid solutions.
The Wikipedia model is one of distributed decision-making. It's actually brilliant, but utterly inadequate if not contained within a structure that efficiently resolves disputes. The problem is not the distributed decision-making, but the lack of other structure that moderates it. I'm claiming that the "other structure" can be light, easy, and efficient. There are hints of the concept in WP:DR which implies slowly escalated dispute resolution. Two editors try to work out their dispute, and if they can't, they ask for a third opinion. Do Wikipedians realize that this works? That is absolutely the most neglected part of DR process. Formalize it, make it easily accessible, develop editors with the skills and stop the immediate escalation to high-level process while skipping basic steps, do what ArbComm demanded of me, but fails routinely to demand of the community. AN/I became largely unusable because that's where people start, when it should be, in fact, a highly filtered 911 for emergencies requiring immediate ad-hoc action and not deliberated decision. You don't have a 911 system where people call the number and are patched into the radio network that goes out to all police and emergency personnel! Who then argue over the call, with everyone else who decides to say something tossing it in. You have a filter, the 911 operator. Very simple to set up. And then administrators would start watching the page again!
There is a great deal more that can be written. Perhaps I should, indeed, start working on Wikiversity, though I'd want some guidance on that. The concepts I developed and am known for, outside, are of general application. They suggest ways of structuring communities that are efficient all the way down to very small ones, but they are designed to be scalable to any size. Yes, any size.
I'm talking about a formalization (and thus extension) of what already exists, but not in an easily documentable way to allow use for rapid formation and estimation of consensus. The formalization is minimal and not in any way confining or burdensome. There is hardly any maintenance cost, and the operational work is simply people who get along with each other communicating and discussing what interests them. It's decentralized with careful, filtered centralization.
The "agreement" you wrote, Moulton, requires some kind of organizational structure to ensure that the necessary attention is applied where needed. A collective wish is not enough. That's why it wasn't maintained, that direction. It falls away unless there is a core which maintains it. But how to have such a core without creating an oligarchy?
No way, probably, but if the oligarchy is directly connected to "those they serve," who do retain the right and power to act individually, it can be restrained and guided by the community consciousness.
Jimbo may be acting against what he sees as a corrupt or ineffective core. Is it? How would you know? Do what I'm suggesting, you will know, and so will he, and then you will make informed choices.
If there are irreconcilable differences, with large factions on either side, it's perfectly possible to fork, and it's even possible for the forks to cooperate for mutual benefit and larger public service. Should there be only one university in the world? Who would think that a good idea?
There should be only one (or one central coordinating structure) if it is operating on maximum consensus, such that there is no need for forks. But there still would be special needs, subprojects, if you will. Make it easy to fork! But, at the same time, make it easy to merge or cooperate. That's what external, independent, voluntary structures can do, if organized efficiently and in such a way that there is no reason not to join. "Joining" means connecting, but the connection can be through a filter that protects you from too much traffic.
Moulton, you gave up. The time was not ripe. But what about now?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 19th March 2010, 1:51pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 6:35am)
I've written extensively about that for a decade and a half. There is an art and practice of community building that I first began studying over twenty years ago. See, for example, this article on Community Building, documenting my views first articulated in 1994.
Nice. It contains some of the concepts I've been working with.
Those 1994 remarks reflect more than abstract concepts. By then, I had more than 5 years of direct experience with them in building an online learning community. I was reporting what I had found to be a workable and successful model.
Well, an agreement is nice, again. What mechanisms would make this happen? In other words, the agreement was good. People will say it's good. They will even pledge to follow it. But if following it is too cumbersome, too difficult, becomes too boring, other aspects of life beckon, etc., what happens, and why are we surprised when it happens?
People are much more likely to abide by their promises than to follow rules imposed by others, even if the content of the promises are substantially the same as the imposed rules. In the process of negotiating a community covenant, the members of the community take ownership of the responsibility for making their community work. More to the point, a well-crafted community covenant provides for a considerabley more peaceable process for dealing with breaches of expectations, compared to a rules-and-sanctions regime. Note that in Wikiculture, those enforcing the rules seem to have a curious appetite for administering sanctions in the wake of an apparent breach. As a result, the community progressively damages itself through a toxic process famously satirized by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Regarding issues of social choice and collective decision-making, are you aware of the work of Kenneth Arrow?
QUOTE
Moulton, you gave up. The time was not ripe. But what about now?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 19th March 2010, 12:57pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 11:54am)
Perhaps if the cadre of disgruntled but otherwise conscientious scholars from WV migrate their work to WikiEducator, the prospects for everyone improve.
I cannot speak to the conditions that exist currently at WikiEducator (although judging from Leigh Blackall's comments, I suspect they are not ideal), but I find it difficult to believe that they cold be much worse than those at Wikiversity.
I'm not sure about other issues there, but I know they don't allow "Original Research". I'm under the impression it's probably closer to Wikibooks than Wikiversity in any case.
“Next up the panel of Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Niklas Zennström (Skype, KaZaA, Joost), and Mitchell Baker (Mozilla) ponder the subject of "disruption" in relation to breaking old business models. When asked how he felt about busting the old encyclopedia model, Jimmy Wales responded, “I’m a bad man†…†— Technorati, 27 Jan 2010.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 2:19pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 19th March 2010, 1:51pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 19th March 2010, 6:35am)
I've written extensively about that for a decade and a half. There is an art and practice of community building that I first began studying over twenty years ago. See, for example, this article on Community Building, documenting my views first articulated in 1994.
Nice. It contains some of the concepts I've been working with.
Those 1994 remarks reflect more than abstract concepts. By then, I had more than 5 years of direct experience with them in building an online learning community. I was reporting what I had found to be a workable and successful model.
Sure. Did you know that by that time I'd had lots of experience (much more than five years) doing community organization, had been a moderator at the W.E.L.L., and that when I wrote that the concepts were "nice," it wasn't a claim that they were "abstract"? I was, though, pointing out that these concepts without structure that makes them function are sometimes useless. I wasn't denying your experience at all. But I'd want to know more about how you made it work, and did it continue to work? Many efforts work fine for a few years until structural defects take their toll.
Well, an agreement is nice, again. What mechanisms would make this happen? In other words, the agreement was good. People will say it's good. They will even pledge to follow it. But if following it is too cumbersome, too difficult, becomes too boring, other aspects of life beckon, etc., what happens, and why are we surprised when it happens?
People are much more likely to abide by their promises than to follow rules imposed by others, even if the content of the promises are substantially the same as the imposed rules.
Of course. That's why seeking consensus can ultimately be efficient, if the process is not too difficult. It requires less maintenance.
QUOTE
In the process of negotiating a community covenant, the members of the community take ownership of the responsibility for making their community work.
Again, sure. But how to do this when the community has become large, how to maintain that connection so that consensus is living instead of a dead thing from the past, that's the question I'm addressing. It would seem you have in mind an ad-hoc process, the kind that works when a group is small. It can also work for a larger group if there is a functional core that enjoys broad consensus. But what happens as these people move on?
QUOTE
More to the point, a well-crafted community covenant provides for a considerabley more peaceable process for dealing with breaches of expectations, compared to a rules-and-sanctions regime. Note that in Wikiculture, those enforcing the rules seem to have a curious appetite for administering sanctions in the wake of an apparent breach. As a result, the community progressively damages itself through a toxic process famously satirized by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Again, of course. It's all predictable. Is there a way to avoid this? You do know, I presume, that there is a lot of entrenched pessimism on that. It's based on a very simple condition: if we don't know of any counterexamples, we may assume that there are none. We may assume this so strongly that we will assume any possible counterexample is impossible, and if we come across it, we will imagine reasons why it cannot work, and we will use these to reject it, even if those imaginations are nothing more than that, they are rationalizations for not troubling ourselves with new ideas. Again, this is all, in some ways, functional behavior. But it's limiting, and if nobody looks beyond these limitations, we are stuck.
QUOTE
Regarding issues of social choice and collective decision-making, are you aware of the work of Kenneth Arrow?
Funny you should ask. I wrote about a screenful about Arrow, in the post you are responding to, and the severe limitations of his work. It's not that Arrow was wrong, it's that he asked and answered a very narrow problem that has practically nothing to do with real decision-making process. I deleted this, because what I wrote was already too long and I'm making proposals that don't require discussing Arrow. You want to discuss Arrow, where? You are quite insightful, it could be useful. Wikiversity? Or are you blocked there?
QUOTE
QUOTE
Moulton, you gave up. The time was not ripe. But what about now?
Now it's even bleaker at Wikiversity.
Sure. That's the very opportunity, don't you think? As long as people could believe that if they did nothing, it would still be okay, they would not be exercised to do what's necessary. The problem really is that response to crisis can be too late, or, if somehow enough response is assembled, it's too narrowly focused. Instead of building systems to address crises, the work is just about "Jimbo is a tyrant" or something like that. Jimbo is actually irrelevant, I don't think I can say that enough. He's not the problem. The problem is the lack of community structure. Do you expect him to create it? Why? Very, very few people in his position even understand how to do it, much less expect that it would be better than anything he could personally do. He's got to see, I suspect, that WP is failing, he's frustrated and probably angry and ready to blame "trolls."
He was taking notes when I spoke at the New York Meetup last year. Looked like he was paying attention. But maybe he was doodling. He hasn't asked me about it, from which I can't conclude a lot. A functionary came up to me and complimented my ability to speak. I do have many decades of experience.... but I'm trying to communicate something that, in fact, seems to take about a year of exposure, minimum, before it even becomes possible for most people to get even a hint of it. A very few people get it immediately, or get part of it. Sometimes they get really excited, I try to calm them down. It's very simple, and, if it works, very easy. But "if it works" is really tricky. Someone has to try it! And nearly everyone wants that to be someone else. They'll join it if it's up and running. But will they get it up and running? Well, so far, very little has happened that way. Enough that I know it's possible, but not enough yet to have a demonstration project to point to where there has been clear success. But it costs nothing to try. It's not some difficult structure to build, requiring programming, meetings, conferences, though all of these could eventually happen. Not needed to begin.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 19th March 2010, 2:50pm)
It Ain't Disruptive If I Like It —
QUOTE
“Next up the panel of Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Niklas Zennström (Skype, KaZaA, Joost), and Mitchell Baker (Mozilla) ponder the subject of "disruption" in relation to breaking old business models. When asked how he felt about busting the old encyclopedia model, Jimmy Wales responded, “I’m a bad man†…†— Technorati, 27 Jan 2010.
And the article says the panel agreed on:
QUOTE
certain things should be basic human rights: information, access to that information, and the ability to distribute it freely.
Which rights are useless if the information is biased, selected, or, in the other direction, completely unbiased and unselected. The internet made lots of information easily available, and Wikipedia did not actually add to that. Instead, Wikipedia is a filter, and filtering is very, very dangerous as well as very necessary. Jimbo set up an information filter, a device by which information filtering (what's "notable," which is a variety of "what's important?") could be controlled. In theory, Wikipedia defers to sources to determine notability, but there are two problems with this, one of them is really, really tough. The relatively easy one is that the process by which standards are applied can be biased, even if the standards are neutral. The solution was theoretically built into Wikipedia: consensus, but the understanding of consensus and the protections necessary to keep it unbiased were not created, and WP process was so horribly inefficient, not valuing volunteer time adequately, that it was unsustainable.
The tough problem is that what is published suffers from bias due to variations in available resources. A simple understanding of this would be that if you have money, you can make something notable. A more fundamental definition of notability would involve the number of humans who know a thing, but, as I said, I consider this a very tough problem. This problem, though, can also be addressed through consensus process. Wikipedia actually follows it to some degree, but in an utterly unreliable and chaotic way. Editors !voting at AfD who believe that a topic is notable may be able to Keep an article with weak sources. A true efficient consensus mechanism could harness this. If most of the editors in a field know a topic, if the experts know a topic, even if it's not published, it's notable in reality. There would still be RS problems, which could be addressed other ways. Early days, Wikipedians sometimes did original research, and it was accepted. Go to the registrar of births and look up a birth date. Call up a BLP subject and ask them a question, etc. Any print encyclopedia would do this kind of thing?! But the problems of determining whom to trust were considered too difficult to address....
The project is still online, but largely dormant now, as the participants have since grown up, graduated from school, and moved on with their adult lives and careers. Incidentally, Howard Rheingold wrote about it in one of the chapters of his book on The Virtual Community.
There probably isn't any point in discussing Arrow's Theorem, other than to note that the problem of designing an optimal social choice function has subtle challenges.
Regarding Wikiversity, Jimbo personally blocked me there two years ago, and purged the site of the content on Managerial Ethics that I had crafted there. I have since ported the deleted material to Google Knol.
In the course of that project, I introduced the concept of a Social Contract Community. As you may know, Wikversity did not see its way clear to adopt or employ that community model. Is it any wonder the site is now crumbling under the dictatorial intervention of Jimbo Wales?
The project is still online, but largely dormant now, as the participants have since grown up, graduated from school, and moved on with their adult lives and careers. Incidentally, Howard Rheingold wrote about it in one of the chapters of his book on The Virtual Community.
I knew Rheingold... The fate of the project is normal. It's possible to build deeper communities that will last, I believe, unless they truly have no more enough function for independent existence (in which case they can be absorbed into a more active project.) But if robust decision-making structures that can survive large-scale disinterest don't exist, very little can be done. In practice, sometimes the last person with sufficient privilege will shut it down in a clean way, but I've seen there be, sometimes, no such person left, and no way to find one.
QUOTE
There probably isn't any point in discussing Arrow's Theorem, other than to note that the problem of designing an optimal social choice function has subtle challenges.
Sure. But an "optimal social choice function," by Arrow's standards, does not exist, and that's all he showed. His standards have almost nothing to do with actual social choice methods, and, further, his definitions were very restricted so that he could come up with his proof. It's been shown by Dhillon and Mertens, in a paper on Rational Utilitarianism, that there is, in fact, a unique amalgamation system that satisfies very slightly modified Arrovian conditions, which can be implemented as simply as by Approval Voting, choice of approval made through Von Neuman-Morganstern utilities. (Which is how people really make choices, individually and instinctively!) And real systems add required approval levels, most typically explicit "majority approval," most precisely requiring a single Yes/No question, reached through iteration, being even more sophisticated. Bottom line: any group using standard parliamentary procedure beats Arrow's theorem all to hell. Doesn't mean there are no problems, but the proof simply doesn't apply. And that it was thought to apply crippled voting system theory for decades, which almost entirely neglected the use of repeated ballot and the role of preference strength.
QUOTE
Regarding Wikiversity, Jimbo personally blocked me there two years ago, and purged the site of the content on Managerial Ethics that I had crafted there. I have since ported the deleted material to Google Knol.
My condolences. I know what it's like to pour your heart and soul into a project and then be rejected.... It's fundamentally stupid, and functional consensus organizations -- and these projects truly need consensus to work -- don't exclude anyone unless, really, they literally need to call the police. They do shut people up in narrow ways and in narrow situations. Look, if a member of a legislature stands up and starts shouting, the sergeant-at-arms carries the fellow out, gently, but as firmly as necessary. Actually expelling the member is way rare, as long as they behave most of the time. They would never expel a member for making biased arguments, making frivolous motions, or whatever, unless it was happening so continuously that it was impossible to conduct business, and the member refused to sit down as directed by the chair. Note that any member of an assembly can immediately appeal a ruling of the chair, ordinarily. If seconded, it goes to immediate vote, no discussion. It's very, very well known how to deal with "disruption" in a way that rigorously protects minorities. Wikipedia tossed all that experience and imagined it had found something better.
I proposed in the last RfAr I was involved in, that editors not debate proposals that had no expressed support, other than by the proposer. That's standard Robert's Rules: do not debate a motion that has not been seconded. This is the rule that does the most damage when neglected in informal process. If nobody is willing to second a motion, why waste time debating it? If I drop a tome on a Talk page, and nobody reads it, i.e., it is actually tl;dr, what harm has been done? Nobody is obligated, in fact, until maybe someone seconds it, and, more likely, someone who does read it and understands it puts up a shorter proposal that I'd second and, still, nobody needs to read it. I never objected to collapse of my talk page posts.
You should have seen them howl when I proposed this. Preposterous!!!
QUOTE
In the course of that project, I introduced the concept of a Social Contract Community. As you may know, Wikversity did not see its way clear to adopt or employ that community model. Is it any wonder the site is now crumbling under the dictatorial intervention of Jimbo Wales?
No, it's not. It's predictable, as one of the possible outcomes. But another is that the community wakes up and realizes that it actually has nearly all the power.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Unfortunately, what really happened was attrition. And the few remaining after the first round of purges and pogroms eventually found themselves being marginalized. Given that Jimbo alienated Larry Sanger early on, it should come as no surprise that he demonstrated continuing hostility toward academics.
Next up the panel of Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Niklas Zennström (Skype, KaZaA, Joost), and Mitchell Baker (Mozilla) ponder the subject of "disruption" in relation to breaking old business models. When asked how he felt about busting the old encyclopedia model, Jimmy Wales responded, “I’m a bad man†… Technorati, 27 Jan 2010.
Jimbo's statement illustrates the fact that anything we do "disturbs the universe" (Freeman Dyson) to some degree, and it's equally trite but true to say that "life is an experiment" for all of us. Jimbo thinks he's a "bad man" in the nicest possible way, I'm guessing, and Wikipedians think that it's just tough luck for anyone who doesn't like their experiments with disruptive social-technical forms.
So firing those kinds of words back and forth does very little to settle the question of when a perturbance has crossed a line too far or when a rupture has ruptured something we'd like to preserve. Life, the experiment, is just not that simple.
Which brings us back to all the years and centuries and millennia that civilizations around and before us have devoted to saying what it means to be civil. Jon Awbrey 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried linking to this but some agent along the way keeps adding an extra underscore character (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)
Try this? — Okay, it looks like it's because of that subpage transclusion business.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 19th March 2010, 2:50pm)
It Ain't Disruptive If I Like It —
QUOTE
“Next up the panel of Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Niklas Zennström (Skype, KaZaA, Joost), and Mitchell Baker (Mozilla) ponder the subject of "disruption" in relation to breaking old business models. When asked how he felt about busting the old encyclopedia model, Jimmy Wales responded, “I’m a bad man†…†— Technorati, 27 Jan 2010.
Jon, we are on the exact same wavelength. As I got in my car this morning, I was thinking, "Didn't Jimbo recently participate on a panel, boasting and taunting about how disruptive was the Wikipedia that 'he and he alone' invented?"
I'll be damned, you found exactly what I was thinking of.
Jimbo is such a hypocrite, isn't he? No wonder three women in a row have told him to hit the road.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Probably the most important kind of disruption is overthrowing a long-standing myth or misconception that has outlived its usefulness as an organizing principle for a culture.
A mature society is constantly in the process of examining (and occasionally overthrowing) myths and misconceptions that would otherwise lead it astray.
It's ironic that Jimbo considers WP so fragile that it cannot survive an academic analysis that might expose its inherent weaknesses.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
Did anyone else enjoy Jim Wales' handwaving when asked under what authority he had acted, and subsequent transparent attempt at "mass hypnosis"?
QUOTE
You care about this project - you don't want it to become known as a haven for cranks and trolls. You won't want it to be hijacked by people who - trust me - will waste as many hours of your time in pointless argumentation about nonsense as you are willing to give them. What you want to do is set up policies...
The last time I heard someone so nakedly telling others what they do and don't think, it was a loudspeaker in the jungles of Guyana. Different Jim.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Fri 19th March 2010, 4:38pm)
Jim Wales:
QUOTE
You care about this project - you don't want it to become known as a haven for cranks and trolls. You won't want it to be hijacked by people who - trust me - will waste as many hours of your time in pointless argumentation about nonsense as you are willing to give them. What you want to do is set up policies...
I agree with Jimbo, as usual. All I can add is that the cranks and trolls who have disrupted Wikiversity are invading Wikimedians from other projects who do not respect what Wikiversity is. It has been problematical for Wikiversity to develop policies that would protect Wikiversity from Wikipedians because of what I call Wikipedia Disease.
Wikiversity nutjobs. I grew up near a giant oak tree that produced thousands of acorns every year. Strangely, no new oak trees ever grew under the existing tree. One year I gathered a big bag of acorns and threw them a short distance from the existing tree. Today there is a little grove of oak trees there. I'm tempted to say that Wikiversity simply cannot grow in the shade of Wikipedia, but I dislike this analogy...it makes the suppression of new growth seem like a perfectly natural phenomenon.
Disease model. Thus, I prefer the "Wikipedia Disease Model" for the troubles at Wikiversity. Wikiversity tried to become a unique wikiproject suited for scholarly learners who want to be free to explore their personal learning goals. However, from the first day, invaders from other Wikimedia projects, mainly Wikipedia, interfered in the development of Wikiversity. Can we be clear about what type of decease process exists? Part of the disease mechanism seems like an autoimmune disease. Wikipedia developed tools for protecting its encyclopedia articles from vandals (such as kids who add "wiki is gay" to articles). The available tools for repairing vandalism have been used to destroy Wikiversity learning projects and drive away honest learners. How does the "Wikimedia immune system" mistakenly attack its own participants and disrupt the development of its own projects such as Wikiversity?
I believe that a major part of the problem is that Wikipedia attracts POV pushers and participants who enjoy tormenting other participants. Particularly during the rapid growth phase of Wikipedia, many "vandal fighters" were allowed in; people who seldom contribute to content creation...they just like playing the role of wikicop. These mutant Wikimedians are like poorly-programmed killer T-cells. They become skilled at gaming the system and they often rise high in the Wikimedia power structure. A small project like Wikiversity is particularly defenseless against invasion by these clueless Wikimedians of destruction who have carried Wikipedia Disease into Wikiversity. Wikiversity attracts thoughtful learners who are disgusted by abusive administrators...it is far easier to leave Wikiversity than fight with invaders from Wikipedia...particularly when the invaders are supported by god (king).
For me, what is most interesting about the current invasion of Wikiversity by outsiders is that the same Wikiversity participants who two years ago collaborated with an outside invasion and executed a hostile takeover of the Wikiversity project are, this time around, talking about jumping ship. Maybe they have learned that they should never have collaborated with the abusive invaders who struck at Wikipedia in 2008. Of course, during the past two years Wikiversity has slid closer to the Wikipedia model. Soon, I fear, the only Wikiversity custodians remaining will be willing to bleat "two legs bad" or "two legs better!" upon command from Wikipedians.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 19th March 2010, 7:20pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 20th March 2010, 1:16am)
You care about this project — you don't want it to become known as a haven for cranks and trolls. You won't want it to be hijacked by people who — trust me — will waste as many hours of your time in pointless argumentation about nonsense as you are willing to give them. What you want to do is set up policies …
I agree with Jimbo, as usual. All I can add is that the cranks and trolls who have disrupted Wikiversity are invading Wikimedians from other projects who do not respect what Wikiversity is. It has been problematical for Wikiversity to develop policies that would protect Wikiversity from Wikipedians because of what I call Wikipedia Disease.
Wikiversity nutjobs. I grew up near a giant oak tree that produced thousands of acorns every year. Strangely, no new oak trees ever grew under the existing tree. One year I gathered a big bag of acorns and threw them a short distance from the existing tree. Today there is a little grove of oak trees there. I'm tempted to say that Wikiversity simply cannot grow in the shade of Wikipedia, but I dislike this analogy … it makes the suppression of new growth seem like a perfectly natural phenomenon.
Disease model. Thus, I prefer the "Wikipedia Disease Model" for the troubles at Wikiversity. Wikiversity tried to become a unique wikiproject suited for scholarly learners who want to be free to explore their personal learning goals. However, from the first day, invaders from other Wikimedia projects, mainly Wikipedia, interfered in the development of Wikiversity. Can we be clear about what type of decease process exists? Part of the disease mechanism seems like an autoimmune disease. Wikipedia developed tools for protecting its encyclopedia articles from vandals (such as kids who add "wiki is gay" to articles). The available tools for repairing vandalism have been used to destroy Wikiversity learning projects and drive away honest learners. How does the "Wikimedia immune system" mistakenly attack its own participants and disrupt the development of its own projects such as Wikiversity?
I believe that a major part of the problem is that Wikipedia attracts POV pushers and participants who enjoy tormenting other participants. Particularly during the rapid growth phase of Wikipedia, many "vandal fighters" were allowed in; people who seldom contribute to content creation...they just like playing the role of wikicop. These mutant Wikimedians are like poorly-programmed killer T-cells. They become skilled at gaming the system and they often rise high in the Wikimedia power structure. A small project like Wikiversity is particularly defenseless against invasion by these clueless Wikimedians of destruction who have carried Wikipedia Disease into Wikiversity. Wikiversity attracts thoughtful learners who are disgusted by abusive administrators … it is far easier to leave Wikiversity than fight with invaders from Wikipedia … particularly when the invaders are supported by god (king).
For me, what is most interesting about the current invasion of Wikiversity by outsiders is that the same Wikiversity participants who two years ago collaborated with an outside invasion and executed a hostile takeover of the Wikiversity project are, this time around, talking about jumping ship. Maybe they have learned that they should never have collaborated with the abusive invaders who struck at Wikipedia in 2008. Of course, during the past two years Wikiversity has slid closer to the Wikipedia model. Soon, I fear, the only Wikiversity custodians remaining will be willing to bleat "two legs bad" or "two legs better!" upon command from Wikipedians.
I remember visiting Wikiversity for a couple of weeks in 2008 because a few people had talked me into thinking that it might be a place that respected academic values. No sooner did I get there than a horde of MetaWikiMedia Marauders like Mike Lifeguard descended from "On High" to harass and threaten me with "blacklisting", making the absurd claim that the perfectly ordinary web vita I put on my "About Jon Awbrey" page was some kind of cross-wiki self-promotional spam because it had a few links on it. Apparently, putting a link-rich vita on your user page is no longer a problem. Nice to know.
In my opinion, "cross-wiki issues" is simply a nonsense codeword. Mike Lifeguard used the same language in 2008 to threaten me with blacklisting simply because my user page had a few links on it. The blocking agent should be asked to explain and justify his charge, not require the defendant — Spanish Inquisition style — to make a list of all the things he might have done wrong. Thekohser should be reinstated immediately, with no conditions. Jon Awbrey 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Good grief, that Darklama is a real subpaging freek — are you sure that isn't Slimvirgin? — it's damn near impossible to follow the original discussion anymore.
I don't think I've ever read a discussion more disturbing on any Wikimedia project.
Is Mike.lifeguard human?
I tried two years ago to get this Review to pay attention to the tightening stranglehold that Mike Lifeguard and other MetaWikimedia Mother-Ship Operatives were imposing across the full spectrum of Wikipedia projects — but everyone was too busy enumerating the Poet*Multiplicity.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 19th March 2010, 10:12am)
Meanwhile, the Wikia, Inc. folks are busy fostering a good "Research Wikia". You'll especially want to note the logo in the upper left corner. Great company you're presiding over there, Jimbo. You clearly know a lot about research!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 613
Joined:
From: Hell, Your Majesty...
Member No.: 15,578
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 20th March 2010, 2:16pm)
It's refreshing to note that song parodies are finally catching on here.
Or at least we can hope.
Ah yes, the discussion topic! My thoughts: Jimbozo is going after Wikiversity because, much like himself, it is a soft target-too small and insignificant for the critical mass needed to raise a real fuss. It is one of few places left where he can still cast around his royal ego like the god king of old.
As is the case with most petty tyrants he is basically a poltroon. When seriously confronted he will back down, just so long as he is not backed into a corner.
Likewise, it is possible that User:Collect is headed toward the blocked experience.
And? If expressing a mild opinion, as I did, results in that, who is the loser? He who fears truth fears all. SBJ will aver that, even when faced with vote-stacking exercises, that I do not shrink from truth. (running forums with many sysops for fifteen years teaches one a bit).
My Response to a Big Mess of WP:POINTYHEADEDNESS —
QUOTE
The Common Sense Point (CS:POINT) is this — any enterprise that fobs an insufficiently-tested product off on the Public may expect the Public to exercise its right to test that product itself, moreover, to demand appropriate revisions, recalls, or removals from the Public Space. This includes social-technical systems of the sort we see in Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sat 20th March 2010, 11:14am)
Jimbozo is going after Wikiversity because, much like himself, it is a soft target-too small and insignificant for the critical mass needed to raise a real fuss. It is one of few places left where he can still cast around his royal ego like the god king of old.
It looks that way, eh? However, WikiVersity operates with the volunteer labor of a community. The value of that labor exceeds greatly in value what is contributed by the WikiMedia Foundation. If the community had an independent means of finding consensus about what it wants to do with the project, it could do it, and the opinion of Jimbo and the WMF would be irrelevant at worst.
It is almost always true that the community has the power, but that this is moot because it is collectively asleep, unable to wake up and coordinate itself, each member dreaming about his or her small part. If a few members start to realize this, and connect, they could form the core of a community nervous system that would function on a high level to develop rational advice, with adequate process to anticipate consensus. If the advice is transmitted through those held in trust, it will be followed (or corrected!). That's the concept. Good advice, is what it boils down to. How to develop advice that is good (cogent and effective!) by design of the system that generates it.
And, yeah, this should be of academic interest. It's about time, I expect.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 613
Joined:
From: Hell, Your Majesty...
Member No.: 15,578
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 20th March 2010, 8:42pm)
It is almost always true that the community has the power, but that this is moot because it is collectively asleep, unable to wake up and coordinate itself, each member dreaming about his or her small part. If a few members start to realize this, and connect, they could form the core of a community nervous system that would function on a high level to develop rational advice, with adequate process to anticipate consensus. If the advice is transmitted through those held in trust, it will be followed (or corrected!). That's the concept. Good advice, is what it boils down to. How to develop advice that is good (cogent and effective!) by design of the system that generates it.
Which community are you referring to here? The community of content contributors or the community of cabals? The former labors away to build while the latter seeks to control content and push its own, petty PoVs.
What you say above is all well and good. However, none of it will come to pass as long as Der Jimbo and his toadies have the power to interfere at will, the admins are held accountable only to him and his appointed Central Committee, and promotion is based primarily on politics and personality rather than content contributions and proven talent.
But hey, as I always tell my S.O. when she scolds my pup for begging scraps; a dog can dream, can't he? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
He would prefer to be able to trust the community to adhere to his dictates, but he doesn't trust everyone to adhere to the party line. For that reason, he prefers that anyone who is not firmly in his camp leave the project, one way or another.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 11,463
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 21st March 2010, 12:48pm)
Can someone who speaks Jimbonese please translate this and this?
JW realized that acting in haste was not wise, but that saying he erred would diminish his authority. He would really like the entire discussion excised at some point, as this is not a case he feels would result in strengthening his position as Founder. The "coming back in 3 months" bit was also an unfortunate phrase as he really would like nothing better than to stay away indefinitely, but saying that would encourage the rabble.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Jimbo's only involvement in WV has been to delete content, to block people, to desysop those who don't toe the party line, and to threaten to shut down the project.
Why would any sane scholar want to have anything to do with him?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined:
Member No.: 8,237
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 21st March 2010, 10:48am)
Can someone who speaks Jimbonese please translate this and this?
He would like to appear to be a benevolent dictator, but wants you to remember who the god king is. He is generous enough to let you continue working for him and is glad to take all the credit.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 21st March 2010, 11:34am)
Jimbo's only involvement in WV has been to delete content, to block people, to desysop those who don't toe the party line, and to threaten to shut down the project.
Why would any sane scholar want to have anything to do with him?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 21st March 2010, 10:53am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 21st March 2010, 11:34am)
Jimbo's only involvement in WV has been to delete content, to block people, to desysop those who don't toe the party line, and to threaten to shut down the project.
Why would any sane scholar want to have anything to do with him?
So you all going home and leaving Moulton behind?
I just had a strange daydream in which Jimbo and Moulton both set up new accounts at Wikiversity and started learning about the Wikiversity project and each other.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
SB_Johnny, what Jimbo is saying is "It seems that you don't accept my personal authority as GodKing, and I'm not absolutely certain that I could take you out by force without it reflecting badly on me in some way, so I'm going to leave you alone for the moment. However, if you do anything I don't like again, I'll be back in your face again. so whatever you did that annoyed me, don't do it again." Rest assured that he'll leave toadies behind to make sure you stay on the true and narrow path.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The first time around, he sent in quite a cadre of toadies, before he decided he needed to do the job himself. This time, I reckon he couldn't rustle up a toadie strong enough to go after both PrivateMusings and SB_Johnny.
Geoff Plourde has put his finger on the more fundamental problem as it now stands.
In a proper community review, PrivateMusings would be called upon to explain and defend his work, or to see his way clear to amend it to conform to any policy violations that come to light.
But since Jimbo summarily blocked PrivateMusings, he is disempowered from presenting his case or otherwise responding in a manner consistent with normative practices.
No amount of back-pedaling by Jimbo can correct this kind of alienation from the fundamental principles of fair treatment of academics in the Wikisphere.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 21st March 2010, 3:17pm)
SB_Johnny, what Jimbo is saying is "It seems that you don't accept my personal authority as GodKing, and I'm not absolutely certain that I could take you out by force without it reflecting badly on me in some way, so I'm going to leave you alone for the moment. However, if you do anything I don't like again, I'll be back in your face again. so whatever you did that annoyed me, don't do it again." Rest assured that he'll leave toadies behind to make sure you stay on the true and narrow path.
I thought that's what it meant, but wasn't sure. Thanks for the translation :-).
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 21st March 2010, 1:00pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 21st March 2010, 3:17pm)
SB_Johnny, what Jimbo is saying is "It seems that you don't accept my personal authority as GodKing, and I'm not absolutely certain that I could take you out by force without it reflecting badly on me in some way, so I'm going to leave you alone for the moment. However, if you do anything I don't like again, I'll be back in your face again. so whatever you did that annoyed me, don't do it again." Rest assured that he'll leave toadies behind to make sure you stay on the true and narrow path.
I thought that's what it meant, but wasn't sure. Thanks for the translation :-).
Asked to account for his presumptive authority, he elaborates his general philosophy here". He thinks such arcane topics are "deep and philosophical", and invites us to ponder them. He advocates something called "interpretive restraint", which I think is fancy-pants for "what I can get away with". He concedes that too much power would risk him "doing something completely bonkers and being bound by a principle that makes no sense", but hey, hindsight's 20/20.
QUOTE
The middle ground is better, where we all agree that gentleness, deliberation, and common sense are among the overarching principles, and we refrain from holding referenda on questions that have no immediate import.
And he really doesn't want anyone asking further questions or trying to figure out some way to describe the situation - you should all forget about it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 21st March 2010, 9:28pm)
Somebody let me know when that ridiculous block of mine is overturned, and I'll get to work on developing some learning materials for Wikiversity.
As I understand the situation, Jimbo made it clear again today that there is a death sentence waiting for anyone that unblocks either you or Privatemusings. Can you edit at http://beta.wikiversity.org or are you under some kind of global block?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 12:52am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 21st March 2010, 9:28pm)
Somebody let me know when that ridiculous block of mine is overturned, and I'll get to work on developing some learning materials for Wikiversity.
As I understand the situation, Jimbo made it clear again today that there is a death sentence waiting for anyone that unblocks either you or Privatemusings. Can you edit at http://beta.wikiversity.org or are you under some kind of global block?
It would appear to me, then, that my ability to edit at "Beta Wikiversity" is not the greatest test that awaits us.
Perhaps what's required here is an "edit off" between Jimbo and me. If he can create better Wikiversity content than I can, pound for pound, across a one-week period, then I myself will call for my ban from Wikiversity.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 21st March 2010, 10:20pm)
Perhaps what's required here is an "edit off" between Jimbo and me. If he can create better Wikiversity content than I can, pound for pound, across a one-week period, then I myself will call for my ban from Wikiversity.
I've been having a fantasy about a "debate club" at Wikiversity...I was imagining matching up User:Spinningspark and Moulton for the first verbal contest.
It would be a real surprise if Jimbo ever actually created some content at Wikiversity. I'd be pleased if he just started using the "edit" button to talk to people before he deletes their work and blocks them.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:30am)
I've been having a fantasy about a "debate club" at Wikiversity...I was imagining matching up User:Spinningspark and Moulton for the first verbal contest.
One of my neighbors once commented on such intellectual debates between me and various other debating partners. His comment was that the others were coming to the contest unarmed.
"Privatemusings and I are having an email discussion which is reasonably productive" <-- According to Privatemusings he has not had an email from Jimbo in 5 days.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:15am)
"Privatemusings and I are having an email discussion which is reasonably productive" <-- According to Privatemusings he has not had an email from Jimbo in 5 days.
In Jimboland a "productive conversation" is one in which he tells you want he wants you to hear, and you don't respond.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:15am)
According to Privatemusings he has not had an email from Jimbo in 5 days.
Right, so a "productive discussion" is one in which Jimbo doesn't actually participate (irrespective of whether or not he claims to be involved somehow).
You shouldn't waste your time trying to unravel Jimbo's doublespeak — the message is not in his meandering mantras but in the constant threat of being excommunicated if you don't bow and scrape nicely enough.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Jimbo has left the situation at WV in a precariously unstable detente. He's given SB_Johnny his sysop tools back on the proviso that SBJ doesn't actually use them to conscientiously remedy the injustices and breaches of policy that Jimbo brazenly injected into WV's established methods of self-governance.
I recommend that the WV Community undertake a WP-style Spammish Inquisition into Jimbo's shameful misbehavior and then summarily block him for "having no interest in writing a learning project."
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:21am)
Jimbo has left the situation at WV in a precariously unstable detente. He's given SB_Johnny his sysop tools back on the proviso that SBJ doesn't actually use them to conscientiously remedy the injustices and breaches of policy that Jimbo brazenly injected into WV's established methods of self-governance.
I recommend that the WV Community undertake a WP-style Spammish Inquisition into Jimbo's shameful misbehavior and then summarily block him for "having no interest in writing a learning project."
More likely they will return to generating free content of questionable value on behalf of Mr. Wales and his pals. When Wikipedians get a email or phone call (pure speculation) from Mr. Wales they generally get all gooey inside and do what he wants. The wind seems to be out of these guys sails.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Regarding this ("I'm sorry if you feel I ignored questions you asked me - can you resend that to me, and I can try to answer now."), it may be of some value to SB Johnny to analyze my experience with Jimbo Wales...
QUOTE
from Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> to Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> date Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:41 PM subject Re: Fwd: Conflicts of Interest mailed-by wikia.com
But, you did flatly lie. Can you explain to me how it was not a lie?
QUOTE
from Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> to Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> date Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:31 AM subject Re: Fwd: Conflicts of Interest mailed-by gmail.com
This would probably be best discussed by phone since it's so complicated, but basically...
(Kohs goes on to explain how he'd never flatly lied to Wales or the Wikipedia community.)
QUOTE
from Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> to Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> date Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM subject Re: Fwd: Conflicts of Interest mailed-by gmail.com
Did you have any reply to this, or are you still thinking about what I've said? Gathering evidence against me? ;-) Whatever the case, I'd like to hear back.
QUOTE
from Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> to Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> date Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 8:38 AM subject Re: Fwd: Conflicts of Interest mailed-by gmail.com
QUOTE: Just like anywhere that human beings gather. We are human, we make mistakes. We get tired and grumpy. We get angry. In general, when we get our heads screwed back on straight, we apologize for our past bad behavior.--Jimbo Wales
I would still appreciate a reply to my lengthy e-mail, even if it's just to say "I'm still thinking about what I'd like to say."
I also sent a couple of Facebook messages to Jimmy Wales about this, in January 2008 and in March 2008, if I recall.
Finally...
QUOTE
Revision as of 05:23, 18 December 2008 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) At one point in history, I deleted this article in a dispute with Gregory Kohs, and I termed it "corporate spam". I now think that was too harsh a judgment and I regret using those words...
So, if you have 359 days to wait, you should be getting an answer from Jimmy Wales.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Greg, you may recall that when IDCab first blocked me on the English Wikipedia, I didn't ask to be unblocked. Instead, I asked a more fundamental question. I asked whether I had been afforded normative due process. It took them about six months to reply. You may recall that several people conceded that I had not been afforded normative due process, but that it was not necessarily a one-off departure, as WP didn't even have due process to begin with.
We have since observed that the lack of normative due process extends to Wikiversity as well, although there has not been a similar formal finding or acknowledgment of that defect in WV's governance process.
Perhaps this is the time for you, PrivateMusings, JW Schmidt, and SB_Johnny to take up the issue of why WV cannot manage to establish a normative policy and practice of affording due process to those alleged to be breaching WV's written (or unwritten) policies.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 9:49am)
I also sent a couple of Facebook messages to Jimmy Wales about this, in January 2008 and in March 2008, if I recall.
I was pretty close:
QUOTE
from Gregory Kohs February 25, 2008 at 10:47pm I'd still really like to see an e-mail explaining to me why you said, "you did flatly lie". I know you're a busy man, but dragging this out for over two months with numerous prompts from me has been less than courteous.
QUOTE
from Jimmy Wales February 26, 2008 at 12:50am Report I understand, and I am sorry.
I will try to dig into this soon.
QUOTE
from Gregory Kohs May 15, 2008 at 11:01am It is now mid-May, and I still haven't heard why you think I "flat out lied". Do you think you're going to ever come up with something concrete on this avenue, or have you decided that I'm not worth the effort (which is not an unreasonable conclusion)?
QUOTE
from Jimmy Wales May 15, 2008 at 5:39pm Report I would rather just make my peace with you. If I can't justify my remark to you, which was only made privately between the two of us by the way, and I can't find the time to figure out why I thought it, then I simply have to retract it and apologize to you.
I am sorry, Gregory, that I ever said that to you. Even if I thought it was justified at the time, it was still impolite. I wish that I had the time to look into it and exonerate you completely in my mind, but unfortunately I don't. I am sorry.
So, in light of that last message to me, I guess you only have to wait 5 months or so for Jimbo to finally respond to your concerns when he calls you a flat-out liar.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
To Jonny and to Moulton, who seem to suggest that I am wasting my time and energy with Wikiversity, I submit that we may be in for some eternal enlightenment soon.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 4:28am)
Somebody let me know when that ridiculous block of mine is overturned, and I'll get to work on developing some learning materials for Wikiversity.
Well, if you develop some material in your user talk space or meta user talk space, we can then use it to justify unblocking you, which is the same system Moulton was given (then turned to block evasion instead). However, it would mean that you would have to stick to producing such material. You already have meta access as a platform to express your cross-wiki concerns/philosophies/beliefs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I love how the blocking admins evade questions when asked to justifiy their blocks, then sit back and let time pass, knowing that no one has the chutzpah to overturn an unjustified and unexplained block.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 5:08pm)
I love how the blocking admins evade questions when asked to justifiy their blocks, then sit back and let time pass, knowing that no one has the chutzpah to overturn an unjustified and unexplained block.
Well, Moulton, you probably would have been unblocked after a few months if you would have just kept to the process that was given to you.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 5:26pm)
The process that was given to me was characterized by Lar, Smoddy, and others as "No Due Process."
All that was asked of you was to do the same project you were doing without personal attacks or personalizing any of the issues. That wasn't too complicated.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Were you aware that Hillgentleman, who was also a WV Custodian, had expressly asked me and PrivateMusings to add in the live examples which we had initially not considered doing at all? Were you aware that the live example from my personal case was initially constructed by JW Schmidt (also a Custodian and Founder of WV), based on his independent research?
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 12:49pm)
All that was asked of you was to do the same project you were doing without personal attacks or personalizing any of the issues. That wasn't too complicated.
In other words, provide a rationale for changing/reforming Wikipedia's governance model without providing clear examples of how the current system is in need of change/reform, right?
That sounds somewhat complicated, though I guess I wasn't really in on the specifics.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
That was Hillgentleman's point, too, in asking for specific examples to illustrate the abstract concepts that I had laid out. One of the questions on the table in that course was how to devise best ethical practices for addressing a breach of ethics by unscrupulous editors on Wikipedia.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 5:57pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 12:49pm)
All that was asked of you was to do the same project you were doing without personal attacks or personalizing any of the issues. That wasn't too complicated.
In other words, provide a rationale for changing/reforming Wikipedia's governance model without providing clear examples of how the current system is in need of change/reform, right?
That sounds somewhat complicated, though I guess I wasn't really in on the specifics.
By personalizing, I meant how his statements were only discussing how people wronged him and consistently putting up song parodies about them.
By the way, I gave him a clear system that he could have easily followed on his talk page.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The unethical practices were hardly limited to those which FeloniousMonk, KillerChihauhua, et al, committed against me. You may recall that the ArbCom case against FM occurred nearly a year after IDCab came after me on WV, and the charges against FM barely mentioned my case at all.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:03pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 4:28am)
Somebody let me know when that ridiculous block of mine is overturned, and I'll get to work on developing some learning materials for Wikiversity.
Well, if you develop some material in your user talk space or meta user talk space, we can then use it to justify unblocking you, which is the same system Moulton was given (then turned to block evasion instead). However, it would mean that you would have to stick to producing such material. You already have meta access as a platform to express your cross-wiki concerns/philosophies/beliefs.
What sort of guarantee do you provide that, should I create content in this manner, that my block will be overturned?
I already know the answer, "Sorry, no guarantees."
Well, in that case, then no lasting content for Wikiversity. I don't make content for Wikiversities where I'm blocked without cause and without viable explanation.
I will, however, be happy to make copyrighted, "rights reserved" content on Wikipedia Review that would be suitable for Wikiversity, if only it were licensed differently. Will you judge that content as a means to "justify unblocking" me?
(Of course, the main reason to "justify unblocking" is that the "block was unjust" in the first place. But, maybe you're not seeing that, Ottava.)
Furthermore, I have to wonder why I must generate new material to provide justification. Why can't it suffice that I have existing material on Wikimedia projects where I'm in good standing?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I don't know if Ottava remembers this, but on one occasion when Jimbo blocked me, the posted reason on the block log was "". It was ingenious of Jimbo to use the Null Reason for the block, as it required the Null Clarification.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:03pm)
What sort of guarantee do you provide that, should I create content in this manner, that my block will be overturned?
I will make you one guarantee:
You produce good content, I will ensure that it will be moved into article space on Wikiversity regardless if you are able to do it on your own or not. I would prefer it if I would be able to get it so that you would be able to move it yourself, but even if I am overruled or unable to allow you to post outside of user talk space, I will serve as the one to move it for you.
QUOTE
(Of course, the main reason to "justify unblocking" is that the "block was unjust" in the first place. But, maybe you're not seeing that, Ottava.)
Perhaps you forgot that I've been called troll quite often so I don't have the reputation/authority to unilaterally make decisions on my own without someone using an excuse to get rid of me.
What sort of guarantee do you provide that, should I create content in this manner, that my block will be overturned?
I will make you one guarantee:
You produce good content, I will ensure that it will be moved into article space on Wikiversity regardless if you are able to do it on your own or not. I would prefer it if I would be able to get it so that you would be able to move it yourself, but even if I am overruled or unable to allow you to post outside of user talk space, I will serve as the one to move it for you.
Hey, Greg! I can put you in contact with half a dozen Nigerian Bank Managers who will give you a better deal than that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Zooming out from this specific case for a moment, I am having trouble reconciling the events, past and present, on WV with this:
QUOTE(What is Wikiversty?)
Scope Wikiversity is as much about building a community as it is about learning and research. You are encouraged to develop and pursue your own learning or research goals. You are encouraged to ask and answer questions. You are encouraged to share what you know and what you would like to know. No subject is out of scope.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:49am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 21st March 2010, 10:35pm)
Do you have a link for where "Jimbo made it clear again today that there is a death sentence waiting"?
I don't see it. Although I did see Jimbo complain about a user named Kurr.
QUOTE
P.S. Kurr seems to be an SPA.--Jimbo Wales 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice way to elevate the debate, Jimbo. You shithead.
A bit off, to be sure. He's got Wikipedia on the brain, and the bizarre Wikipediot idea that someone is Bad if they are focused. Like, God forbid if an expert should write on their favorite subject. It's totally ludicrous on WikiVersity. Imagine if it were argued that a professor should be fired because they only write about Shakespeare.
There are problems with SPAs, specialists, anywhere. They may not be able to participate well in decisions that balance the needs of "departments." They may have a strong POV, which is normal with experts in anything, professional or amateur. Generally, in real world projects that know how to deal with these issues, there are other specialists, you could call them. Generalists, and people whose expertise is administration and balance. And ideally, an atmosphere of collegiality and recognition of common goal, with those skilled in resolution of disputes who do just that and keep everyone focused on the shared goal, as far as whatever common decisions are necessary.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 8:25pm)
And ideally, an atmosphere of collegiality and recognition of common goal, with those skilled in resolution of disputes who do just that and keep everyone focused on the shared goal, as far as whatever common decisions are necessary.
This is the kind of visionary leadership that is missing in Wikiculture.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 4:26pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 4:19pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:03pm)
What sort of guarantee do you provide that, should I create content in this manner, that my block will be overturned?
I will make you one guarantee:
You produce good content, I will ensure that it will be moved into article space on Wikiversity regardless if you are able to do it on your own or not. I would prefer it if I would be able to get it so that you would be able to move it yourself, but even if I am overruled or unable to allow you to post outside of user talk space, I will serve as the one to move it for you.
Jon's knee-jerk cynicism has lost much of its purpose. It's an interesting offer from Ottava, and he'd be risking his own account with it. Would he be accused of "meat puppetry?" Legitimately, no, if he is careful to make sure that the material meets Wikiversity policy. But would the King stick with what is rational? Or would he see this as a provocation, trolling, and Ottava as the enabler, and block Ottava? Politically, it's quite interesting, and it isn't a POINT violation, because it will be producing good content (as judged by Ottava, and Ottava might even ask for other opinions.)
(I would not personally interpret WP:POINT to mean, "thou shalt not produce good content that could irritate an administrator." It's about actual disruption.)
Greg, if you are so inclined, I'd encourage doing it. Don't bust yourself for it, but just do a modest or better piece of good work. You can always put it somewhere else anyway.
Ottava's offer has raised my opinion of his WikiVersity work, particularly if he has the chance to follow through and actually does it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 2:02pm)
That was Hillgentleman's point, too, in asking for specific examples to illustrate the abstract concepts that I had laid out. One of the questions on the table in that course was how to devise best ethical practices for addressing a breach of ethics by unscrupulous editors on Wikipedia.
While it sounds reasonable, Moulton, there is a problem.
If the purpose is education, using controversial examples can have a harmful effect. Basically, what would be needed are examples that are not controversial, that are generally accepted as breaches of ethics, and then how to address them. (And examples that aren't so clear would be needed to, because part of "best ethical practices" would be how to deal with unclear situations.)
I think you may have been jumping the gun, trying to do what requires prerequisites, and perhaps the prerequisite would be a means of actually determining broad consensus on what is a breach of ethics, in specific examples. "Broad consensus" here would mean a broad consensus of the informed, and how that is determined is not necessarily clear.
I keep pointing at the same problem, lack of coherent and protected decision-making process.
There is an additional problem. Suppose you find a clear example of breach of ethics. Even if it's clear and accepted, to refer to it can be a personal attack, outside of a context of necessity. So you would presumably anonymise the example. You'd base it on real examples, but modify non-essential details. If someone questions the reality of the example, you could reveal the reality privately, without exposing the original editor to public criticism over ancient history.
And if you anonymise the details, then you don't need to wait for a matter to be decided by consensus; but you would simply discuss the abstract situation and see if you can find agreement on the principles without the identity mattering. Who it is shouldn't matter, should it?
So did you insist on pointing to actual examples and then run into problems because of that, and can you see that the problem might have been real and that probably some compromise should have been found? Were you willing to compromise, to find a consensus solution? If not, be assured that I understand this to be human, and a sane community would have assisted you instead of simply excluding you. Basically, you may have erred and you were abused.
But I also know that wikiprocess can so badly fail that you could have been utterly and completely right and the soul of compromise and consensus-seeking, and you could still have been hammered.
Yes there is absolutely no way a veteran wiki user could also be a new user....unless of course they have happened to use one of the millions of other (non-wikimedia) wikis out there before. Proof this does not create.
Yes there is absolutely no way a veteran wiki user could also be a new user....unless of course they have happened to use one of the millions of other (non-wikimedia) wikis out there before. Proof this does not create.
Ottava believes proof is over-rated. He goes on faith, I think.
But yeah, importing other people's monobooks and then finding an obscure conversation to jump in on are major clues someone is not doing what is normal.
I don't need faith — I got the United Nation Of Nigeria Code Of Conduct (UNONCOC) …
QUOTE
*UNITED NATIONS COMPENSATION.* *From: Mrs. Pamela Johnson* *Executive Payment Officer (UN)* * * * * *Attention: Beneficiary* * * *This is to officially inform you that we have verified your contract / inheritance file presently on my desk, and I found out that you have not received your payment due to your lack of co-operation and not fulfilling the obligations giving to you in respect to your contract / inheritance payment.* *Secondly, you are hereby advised to stop dealing with some non-officials in the bank as this is an illegal act and will have to stop if you so wish to receive your payment immediately. After the board meeting held at our headquarters, we have resolved in finding a solution to your problem, and as you may know, we have arranged your payment through our SWIFT CARD PAYMENT CENTRE in Europe, America and Asia Pacific, which is the instruction given by our president, Umaru Yar’adua (GCFR) Federal Republic of Nigeria. * *This card centre will send you an ATM CARD which you will use to withdraw your money in an ATM MACHINE in any part of the world, but the maximum is ($20,000.00) Twenty Thousand Us Dollars per day. So, if you like to receive your fund this way, please do let us know by forwarding the below details to Prof Frank Obi the CARD PAYMENT CENTRE on this email: **_atm_swiftcard@webmail.co.za_** * *Click on this link to see for yourself** **_(http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ik344.doc.htm_* <mailto:info_revpaulobioffice2009@(http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ik344.doc.htm>*)**_ _* _ _ *(1) Your Full Name * *(2) Address where you want the payment centre to send your ATM CARD.* *(3)Phone And Fax Number* *(4) Your Total Fund to be received is US$2.600,000.00* * * *Instead of losing your fund, please indicate to the Card Centre the total sum you are expecting and for your information you have stop any further communication with anybody or office. On this regards, do not hesitate to contact me for more details and direction, and also please do update me with any new development. * *Thanks for your co-operation.* * * *Regards,* *From: Mrs. Pamela Johnson* *Executive Payment Officer (UN)* *United Nation Of Nigeria. * _ _
*_Note: Because of impostors, we hereby issue you with our code of conduct, which are _**_(4709)_**_ so you have to indicate this code when contacting this CARD CENTRE_*
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 8:51pm)
So did you insist on pointing to actual examples and then run into problems because of that, and can you see that the problem might have been real and that probably some compromise should have been found? Were you willing to compromise, to find a consensus solution? If not, be assured that I understand this to be human, and a sane community would have assisted you instead of simply excluding you. Basically, you may have erred and you were abused.
But I also know that wikiprocess can so badly fail that you could have been utterly and completely right and the soul of compromise and consensus-seeking, and you could still have been hammered.
Abd, before John Schmidt or I wrote up the IDCab case, PrivateMusings wrote up some hypothetical "scenarios" loosely modeled after his experiences on Wikipedia. Hillgentleman read those hypothetical "scenarios" and found them uncompelling, because they had been watered down from reality. He urged PrivateMusings to write up the real cases, and he urged us to fill out the abstract course material with more such real cases. We followed his guidance, which I believe was good guidance.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Wikiversity, upholding Jimbo's rationale for a permanent block/ban)
Clearly, as you've accepted, you don't like Jimbo, and the impression I get from your edits is that you came here last week with an axe to grind, having seen an opportunity to criticise Jimbo.
Greg and I generally have a personal policy and practice of republishing, reposting, reviewing, and responding to our occasional critics. We both appreciate that critics and criticisms are part of the dialogue process, and we routinely engage with our critics (perhaps more frequently than is of interest to anyone else looking on).
As Adambro has noted, Jimbo does not care to extend free speech to his critics, nor (as Greg has recently documented), does he care to respond to them in any forum, inside or outside of the venues under his personal control. Jimbo's policy is to stifle criticism where and when he can, and to ignore it otherwise.
Probably there is a middle ground between Jimbo's policy and practice of suppressing dialogue with critics and the way Greg and I do it, highlighting and engaging in open dialogue with our critics.
Fair Criticism Wikipedians are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders.
Gaming the System Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel or excessively strict view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is an example of gaming the system and should be avoided.
It occurs to me that Mr. Wales has notably departed from those guiding principles in his intervention in WV's methods of self-governance.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:12am)
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
QUOTE
:faith: Pronunciation: \ˈfÄth\, noun; (1):firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Your faith is rivaled only by your lack of scholarship.
You do realize that you can have evidence for something but not proof, right? Proof is the ability to say that something must be something and not something else.
By the way, I don't trust it when someone quotes a dictionary and has only one definition. Obviously, there are many definitions and selectively choosing the one that only defends you is never really something respectable. Now, this definition is similar to yours but worded far more accurately: "belief that is not based on proof". Now, notice this completely different definition: " the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. "
After all, the Scripture does serve as evidence, and there is a long line of people providing documents and other bits of evidence which makes it more than blind faith, which your definition seems to be more accurately defining.
Remember, though, this is "Conditional on not restarting the breaching experiment project in any form".
So, for those of you keeping score, the net outcome thus far is:
1. Jimbo reveals that a silly power trip is not beneath him. It is very unlikely that he will ever return to Wikiversity, as he feels he has "won" this decisive battle. Indeed, he may have. It remains to be seen. I give him 70-30 odds that he's the winner here. 2. SB Johnny is currently wearing the pink leg warmers that Jimbo bought him and told him to wear, but he may take them off and set them ablaze in the WMF mailbox before going to work on youth education materials on another wiki. 3. Privatemusings is currently wearing the pink tutu that Jimbo bought him and told him to wear. It's uncertain whether or not PM fancies this garb or not. We haven't heard much from him here. 4. There will be no restart of any breaching experiment research or documentation, at least not on Wikiversity. (See the 70-30 odds, above.) 5. Thekohser is banned from Wikiversity, and if Jimbo has his wish, it would be a "global" thing across all WMF projects. Thekohser will continue to solicit paid editing engagements, unbeknown to Jimbo, WP, WV, or the WMF "community". Kohs' book about subverting Wikipedia is due for release in May 2010.
faith: Pronunciation: \ˈfÄth\, noun; (1):firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Your faith is rivaled only by your lack of scholarship.
A whole lot of puzzlement about the Populace of Wikipedia is cleared up by understanding that it's a Faith Oriented Group (FOG) and not a Knowledge Oriented Group (KOG).
Remember, though, this is "Conditional on not restarting the breaching experiment project in any form".
So, for those of you keeping score, the net outcome thus far is:
1. Jimbo reveals that a silly power trip is not beneath him. It is very unlikely that he will ever return to Wikiversity, as he feels he has "won" this decisive battle. Indeed, he may have. It remains to be seen. I give him 70-30 odds that he's the winner here. 2. SB Johnny is currently wearing the pink leg warmers that Jimbo bought him and told him to wear, but he may take them off and set them ablaze in the WMF mailbox before going to work on youth education materials on another wiki. 3. Privatemusings is currently wearing the pink tutu that Jimbo bought him and told him to wear. It's uncertain whether or not PM fancies this garb or not. We haven't heard much from him here. 4. There will be no restart of any breaching experiment research or documentation, at least not on Wikiversity. (See the 70-30 odds, above.) 5. Thekohser is banned from Wikiversity, and if Jimbo has his wish, it would be a "global" thing across all WMF projects. Thekohser will continue to solicit paid editing engagements, unbeknown to Jimbo, WP, WV, or the WMF "community". Kohs' book about subverting Wikipedia is due for release in May 2010.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Getting back to keeping the faith...
A true believer is someone who not only professes a belief, but also adopts and employs practices implied by that belief.
Compare the true believer to the hypocrite who merely professes a belief whilst adopting and employing practices contra-indicated by the belief in question.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 2:17pm)
Remember, though, this is "Conditional on not restarting the breaching experiment project in any form".
It was the same thing I asked of him (12 days before the incident happened, mind you). I told him he could analyze old ones but could not support new ones.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:43am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 2:17pm)
Remember, though, this is "Conditional on not restarting the breaching experiment project in any form".
I told him he could analyze old ones but could not support new ones.
Well, in that case, how about analyzing the breaching experiment just concluded, in which Jimbo breached the defenses of WV's autonomous self-governance processes?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:47am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:43am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 2:17pm)
Remember, though, this is "Conditional on not restarting the breaching experiment project in any form".
I told him he could analyze old ones but could not support new ones.
Well, in that case, how about analyzing the breaching experiment just concluded, in which Jimbo breached the defenses of WV's autonomous self-governance processes?
Or how about this: What happens if we poke a bear in the eye?
Er, what "autonomous self-governance process?" Is there a good analysis of that? I don't see that there were any defenses at all. It wasn't autonomous, how could it be imagined to be so, when it's "autonomy" was clearly predicated on the continued consent of the actual legal authority? What existed, and still exists, is an operating and inefficient adhocracy, allowed to function with little restraint because that is seen as convenient by the actual authority. It is not autonomous and independent and has not developed the mechanisms that would be necessary for this to be a reality. It is, instead, a voluntary servant, and it appears that it may have forgotten that. More accurately, it is a collection of voluntary servants, the assemblage has not itself developed sufficient coherent structure to function collectively in an autonomous and independent way.
"Inefficient." It's efficient short-term, it is long term efficiency that is generally missing from the wiki model. The adhocracy was, in a sense, very efficient for initial construction of Wikipedia, in particular, but for maintenance and for resolution of disputes and stability of content, it was highly inefficient, requiring vast amounts of labor, sometimes, to make the smallest decisions.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 1:25pm)
We have rules against personal attacks, you know.
Actually, what we really know is that the so-called "rules" are actually weapons to be used at will against rival editors with whom we have a personal beef.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 5:35pm)
Actually, what we really know is that the so-called "rules" are actually weapons to be used at will against rival editors with whom we have a personal beef.
What is my personal beef with Kohs? I've only defended him or been neutral throughout my experience with him.
He should be thankful I merely gave him a warning and didn't let someone else see it first and possibly just block him right off. He crossed an obvious line.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I mean, "Adambro seems to support anti-Arab discrimination based on surnames alone, while patrolling for parking meter violations" is a very serious-sounding, realistic, extremely hurtful attack on another human being, isn't it?
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 1:44pm)
He should be thankful I merely gave him a warning and didn't let someone else see it first and possibly just block him right off. He crossed an obvious line.
Oh, thank you, precious Ottava. You rescued me from becoming 100% "blocked" on a site where I was already 99.8% blocked. You are my hero. Where should I kiss you?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 1:44pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 5:35pm)
Actually, what we really know is that the so-called "rules" are actually weapons to be used at will against rival editors with whom we have a personal beef.
What is my personal beef with Kohs? I've only defended him or been neutral throughout my experience with him.
Oh, I dunno. Mebbe you are peeved at him for failure to obey or failure to appreciate your kind offer to soothe and heal his wounds from the last round of being kiboshed by the blunt end of a ruler.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 1:44pm)
He should be thankful I merely gave him a warning and didn't let someone else see it first and possibly just block him right off.
Oh, that must be it. You are peeved that he didn't thank you for threatening him with the blunt end of a random rule.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 1:44pm)
He crossed an obvious line.
The intersection of all boundary lines (both obvious and otherwise) is the Null Space.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 5:47pm)
Oh, thank you, precious Ottava. You rescued me from becoming 100% "blocked" on a site where I was already 99.8% blocked. You are my hero. Where should I kiss you?
Oh, no, don't you dare say here:
>.<
That .2% gives you the chance to prove that you are not a troll, which could mean a 0% block later on.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 3:56pm)
That .2% gives you the chance to prove that you are not a troll, which could mean a 0% block later on.
You are so terribly dim, Ottava. I already "proved" that I am not a Wikiversity "troll", from the time period and 27 edits that spanned July 10, 2008 through April 23, 2009. I only became a "troll" in your puny brain, moments after Jimbo came crashing through your front door, yelling, "There's a TROLL among ye!"
SB Johnny, that place was clearly not deserving of your talent.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:24pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:01pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 3:56pm)
That .2% gives you the chance to prove that you are not a troll, which could mean a 0% block later on.
You are so terribly dim, Ottava. I already "proved" that I am not a Wikiversity "troll", from the time period and 27 edits that spanned July 10, 2008 through April 23, 2009. I only became a "troll" in your puny brain, moments after Jimbo came crashing through your front door, yelling, "There's a TROLL among ye!"
SB Johnny, that place was clearly not deserving of your talent.
Ottava, it's all yours, pal!
Proven to who? The ones calling you such need to be satisfied before you can say you proved anything. Your criteria do not match the criteria I see before you. You are given a door. You can choose to walk through or not.
IOW, you're assumed to be a troll before you've proven yourself productive. Yep, WV is now reactionary.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:40pm)
IOW, you're assumed to be a troll before you've proven yourself productive. Yep, WV is now reactionary.
No. He is assumed to be blocked because his block log says so. I am not going to block or unblock Kohs regarding the previous matter. I will serve as an advocate to lobby for him to be unblocked if he meets my conditions. He can choose not to do so.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 2:51pm)
Trial?!? We don't need no steenkin' trials.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:40pm)
Yep, WV is now reactionary.
Sentence first, verdict later.
According to NYB how you serve out your sentence is an important factor in determining your verdict.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:51pm)
Trial?!? We don't need no steenkin' trials.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:40pm)
Yep, WV is now reactionary.
Sentence first, verdict later.
It really is a damn shame to see well-meaning people jump on a bandwagon they probably wouldn't jump on if they really had time to think about it. The problem is that the bandwagon passes by pretty quickly, and there's not much time for thought.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:52pm)
It really is a damn shame to see well-meaning people jump on a bandwagon they probably wouldn't jump on if they really had time to think about it. The problem is that the bandwagon passes by pretty quickly, and there's not much time for thought.
Instead of resigning, you should've blocked Jimbo for disruption. If those alleged trolls were in fact guilty, then it follows that the same treatment should apply to all users who behave disruptively without producing content. If they were not guilty, then Jimbo is even more of a menace because he's excluding good contributors without producing anything of value to compensate for the losses.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:43pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:52pm)
It really is a damn shame to see well-meaning people jump on a bandwagon they probably wouldn't jump on if they really had time to think about it. The problem is that the bandwagon passes by pretty quickly, and there's not much time for thought.
Instead of resigning, you should've blocked Jimbo for disruption. If those alleged trolls were in fact guilty, then it follows that the same treatment should apply to all users who behave disruptively without producing content. If they were not guilty, then Jimbo is even more of a menace because he's excluding good contributors without producing anything of value to compensate for the losses.
What part of "the rules do not apply to Jimbo" do you not understand, EK? So long as he has the support of 5 or more other members of the 10 member WMF board, he can do as he likes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
Now, the only question is how far does "do as he likes" extend? Well, bullying SB_Johnny is part of how he finds out. The next time, he knows he can go at least that far, and his power is, at this exact moment, at least that safe. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Bullying is usually not an end, but a means to an end. That end is finding your place on the totem pole. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) In any social group, from baboons, to prison yard politics, to academic infighting at the university, to international incidents, bullying is how pecking orders are established. Testing and defiance goes on all the time, all the way from the 3-year-old who tells the parents "no!" to Israel telling her major monetary supporter to go fish. What are the consequences to any of these actions? You never know, till you test. Things shift all the time.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 11:43pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:52pm)
It really is a damn shame to see well-meaning people jump on a bandwagon they probably wouldn't jump on if they really had time to think about it. The problem is that the bandwagon passes by pretty quickly, and there's not much time for thought.
Instead of resigning, you should've blocked Jimbo for disruption. If those alleged trolls were in fact guilty, then it follows that the same treatment should apply to all users who behave disruptively without producing content. If they were not guilty, then Jimbo is even more of a menace because he's excluding good contributors without producing anything of value to compensate for the losses.
Jimbo could have unblocked himself, desysopped/blocked/locked SB Johnny's account, and gotten away scot free. Do you honestly think that any steward would dare to remove Jimbo's rights? They technically do work for the Board of Trustees, of which Jimbo is a member.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Wed 24th March 2010, 4:55am)
Jimbo could have unblocked himself, desysopped/blocked/locked SB Johnny's account, and gotten away scot free. Do you honestly think that any steward would dare to remove Jimbo's rights? They technically do work for the Board of Trustees, of which Jimbo is a member.
Plus, what Ottava said.
The point is that people need to start holding Jimbo to the same standards of conduct that are expected of other users. Yes, Jimbo has supporters and enablers, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't still be applying community standards to him. That's the only way to prevent him from throwing his weight around--make it too politically costly for him. Somebody compared him to a bully earlier, and that's exactly right. You stop a bully by standing up to him.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 10:50pm)
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Wed 24th March 2010, 4:55am)
Jimbo could have unblocked himself, desysopped/blocked/locked SB Johnny's account, and gotten away scot free. Do you honestly think that any steward would dare to remove Jimbo's rights? They technically do work for the Board of Trustees, of which Jimbo is a member.
Plus, what Ottava said.
The point is that people need to start holding Jimbo to the same standards of conduct that are expected of other users. Yes, Jimbo has supporters and enablers, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't still be applying community standards to him. That's the only way to prevent him from throwing his weight around--make it too politically costly for him. Somebody compared him to a bully earlier, and that's exactly right. You stop a bully by standing up to him.
Not if the record of your standing up to the bully lasts only 30 seconds.
To some extent, WR acts as the memory hole plug that WP wishes it didn't have. But when the day is ended, they're a much larger site. If you're going to stand in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square, you'd at least like the photo of that to stay up in people's memories. On WP, the tank will run over you, and likely nobody will either remember, or give a shit.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Why do you think Google finally moved their services off shore?
In cyberspace, it's not that hard to move an operation out from under the thumb of the bully. Server space for a small project the size of Wikiversity is not as costly today as it was when WP was launched a decade ago.
For an individual who has crafted a modest number of durable articles, it is easy enough to port them to other sites like Google Knol or Google Sites.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Don't miss the concluding remarks of Peter Rawthshorne and Leigh Blackall on Leigh Blackall's Blog.
As I read Jimbo's agenda, he is urging his crew to declare an all out War on Trolls, thereby turning WMF-sponsored projects into a First-Person Shooter Game.
I suppose it begs the question of how to define and recognize a troll, but there does exist a NY Times Sunday Magazine article on the subject, Malwebolence: The Trolls Among Us.
To: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Board members,
As members of the Wikiversity community (en.wikiversity.org) we seek your input on matters of concern to the Wikiversity community.
The mission of the English-language Wikiversity community has repeatedly been disrupted by WMF Foundation Board member Jimmy Wales. He claims to have the full support of the WMF Board for making his disruptive contributions to the Wikiversity community. In particular, Mr. Wales does not seem to understand the function of the "edit" button. At Wikiversity, community members click the "edit" button and collaboratively improve our learning resources. Rather than follow our fundamental community practices (discuss and edit), Mr. Wales 1) deletes pages without following the established process for community discussion of page deletion decisions, 2) has imposed bad blocks on Wikiversity participants who (unlike Mr, Wales) follow community guidelines, 3) Mr. Wales inappropriately performed an emergency desysop on a Wikiversity Custodian when no emergency existed and 4) rather than participate in mature discussion of his actions with the community he bullies the community and threatens that the Wikiversity community will be terminated if his heavy-handed actions are questioned by the Wikiversity community.
We request that the Board hold a public discussion of these matters, a discussion where members of the Wikiversity community can speak and defend the Wikiversity project against unwelcome intrusions by the Board's representative (Mr. Wales). We believe that the Board should then hold a public vote in which the Board members all clearly state that through its agent, Mr. Wales, the Board will continue to make unilateral decisions about Wikiversity content and will in the future continue to perform emergency desysop procedures on Wikiversity custodians when no emergency exists.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
{list of names of Wikiversity community members sending the letter}
(Last paragraph is a bit cack-handed - surely it should be asking for a clear resolution against inappropriate actions rather than a confirmation that inappropriate actions are board sanctioned).
I have a feeling that the Board will respond that Wikiversity doesn't have any real desysopping guidelines nor do we have an ArbCom like system (our Review Board has never made itself official) so there would be no way to claim that Jimbo's actions were inappropriate.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 9
Joined:
Member No.: 18,142
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 24th March 2010, 4:31pm)
I have a feeling that the Board will respond that Wikiversity doesn't have any real desysopping guidelines nor do we have an ArbCom like system (our Review Board has never made itself official) so there would be no way to claim that Jimbo's actions were inappropriate.
Yes, ignore and discount the Community Review system because it is not enough like the ArbCom system or a Review Board.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Discussions on the WV Community Review sound a lot like the discussions between Google and the Chinese government. Each side decries the other and accuses them of acting in bad faith.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I like the idea of this OPEN LETTER. Too bad there are a number of mistakes in the text, which lends it an air of amateurishness. Too bad I'm blocked, or I'd pitch in.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 24th March 2010, 4:30pm)
Have you ever stopped to think that making as much drama as possible would hurt your position and not help?
Resigning isn't "making as much drama as possible"; if he wanted to do that he would have stayed, and maybe blocked Jimbo or recreated some of the articles Jimbo objected to. That seems fairly clear, to me at least.
QUOTE
Your "right thing to do" is basically seen as just a hissyfit. You may feel good about it, but what you really just did was basically say "I didn't get my way so I am out of here".
Again, that's not quite right, and you're obviously biased in any case. It's only a "hissy-fit" if he returns and asks for his admin rights back. As long as he stays away, it's at least as much a "principled stand against interference" as anything else. Continuing to participate in a system that no longer supports your values, and clearly isn't going to in future, is a waste of time - I personally would go so far as to say it isn't logical or sensible, either, though I suppose that depends on how confident one might be of one's ability to change the system from within.
QUOTE
That screws over everyone else.
IMO, "everyone else" is already screwed over as much as can be imagined, just by their being there in the first place! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
Juan asserts that Wales behaves like an elephant in a china shop, that he doesn't respect ethical guidelines, and that he disrupted and discredited Wikiversity.
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki < Founder
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Juan de VojnÃkov (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 25 March 2010. It may differ significantly from the current version.
Revision as of 00:27, 25 March 2010 by Juan de VojnÃkov (talk | contribs) (diff) ↠Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
I would like to propose and give the place to Wikimedia community to discuss about possible founder rights removal. This rights were given to Jimmy Wales (were there any election?), the founder of Wikipedia, to act on Wikipedia as a steward forever. Unfortunately other communities (other then Wikipedia), were not informed about this fact, but Jimmy Wales behaves there like an elephant in china shop. He doesn't respect any ethical rules applied until this time by other stewards and simply disrupted and discredited Wikiversity. And I am afraid that other projects might be possibly injured in the future, as this was not for the first time Jimbo dit it (in begging of fall 2008 he came to English Wikiversity (at those times elected as a steward) and disrupted the project, which led to the exodus of people outside).
I would say, that such charismatic person as Jimmy Wales would not saw phrases such as “I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board.†(source: [1]) That is what discredits Wikiversity as a project. I think such smart guy as Jimmy Wales is, can't say such a phrase even in the case WMF would discuss about the possibility of the closing the project!
The other problem blocking users (even administrators, who haven't been noticed as a "danger" by community), desysopsing administrators and deleting pages without a further discussion an based on a "simple" call on his Wikipedia discussion page leads to the exodus of people from the project. People who believed in community decision making are gone and may never come back. They can't swallow the fact, that community decision making is changed to centralized dictatorship from day to day, by the Wikimedia movement founder, the symbol of free thinking.
So let me open this evaluation. During the last 2 years Mr. Jimmy Wales showed he is not able to use the rights, which community (or someone ?) gave to his hands. For further reading about the current problem you can visit these pages: Talk:Wikiversity/Problems and v:en:Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments. —Juan de VojnÃkov 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
For removal
1. according my opinion Jimmy Wales has abused his rights. If English Wikipedia think, he should have unlimited rights there, lets create him special rights limited just to English Wikipedia. On other projects Jimmy Wales is not able to act with cool mind. —Juan de VojnÃkov 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Contra removal
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founder/Proposal_to_the_rights_removal"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 24th March 2010, 5:30pm)
You may feel good about it, but what you really just did was basically say "I didn't get my way so I am out of here". That screws over everyone else.
Good! Maybe the rest of you in your pink flouncy-wear will wake up soon and realize Jimbo's figuratively screwin' each of you up the back-side, no lube.
Looks like Privatemusings already gets that. What's taking you so long to figure it out, Ottava?
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
[Moderator's note: this thread had gotten out of hand with one-line responses, gratuitous insults, and general nonsense. While none of those are problematic in small doses, there was far too much coming from one or two members. It has all been split off into its own thread in the same forum. If you want to bait Ottava, go there. Ottava, if you want to post one-liners, go there. No more BS will be tolerated here, even if it is the "Annex". And where the f*ck is Obesity, anyway?]
Juan asserts that Wales behaves like an elephant in a china shop, that he doesn't respect ethical guidelines, and that he disrupted and discredited Wikiversity.
What happened? It says at the top of the confirmation vote summary: By Jimbo's request, the Board requested the creation of a founder group for Jimbo. He has been switched to that group accordingly.
The Board intervened at Jimbo's request. The community would have removed the rights that Jimbo then preserved for himself. The Board can always pull the plug, as long as they own the site. But maintaining Jimbo's personal rights is violating the autonomy of the wiki, very clearly. They can, again, do that. But the community should not be in denial about it. The problem, then, was the board, and perhaps the perception that the community would not be able to govern itself. That is the only excuse for maintaining the finger in the pie.
I'm saying, so many times and so many ways, that the way beyond this mess is to develop the mechanisms for self-government, in ways that can't be interdicted. Then respect your own community's decisions, especially if they represent true consensus (which could mean anything from massive support to a majority position that is true, not a result of socking or participation bias, and it's possible to take precautions against the latter hazards.) If the community respects and empowers its own decisions, WMF would be largely helpless. It could defy the community and pull the plug, and the community would simply set up the wiki somewhere else, and it would have the power. It could place its stooges in charge at WV, and the community could, again, just walk and set up a rival wiki elsewhere, and the stooges would have an awful time of it.
But just yakking without setting up the structure? Useless waste of time, for the most part.
It's a bold move to suggest the removal of Jimbo, but not bold enough. Don't remove him, replace him, with a genuine community governing mechanism that can make coherent decisions and that will enjoy actual support from the community. My suspicion is that he and the WMF board would not actually defy it. But you won't ever know for sure until you try.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th March 2010, 12:08pm)
[from the draft letter, which has no stated on-wiki support, by the way] ... We believe that the Board should then hold a public vote in which the Board members all clearly state that through its agent, Mr. Wales, the Board will continue to make unilateral decisions about Wikiversity content and will in the future continue to perform emergency desysop procedures on Wikiversity custodians when no emergency exists.
Really? They think that the Board should state that it will, through Mr. Wales, continue to make unilateral decisions?
This does point out what's missing from the letter. What do they actually think the Board should do? How should the Board deal with what it perceives as problems on WikiVersity. Should it ignore them? Should it send in its "agent?" (Nobody else was available or willing to serve in this capacity? Isn't that a bit strange?) Should it deal with a representative of the WV community, perhaps elected by it? What?
That the real question isn't addressed is a sign to me that thinking about this problem is still very shallow. It's "us" vs. Jimbo. Which is not the real question, the real question is how the wiki is governed and how it can be responsible for itself, legally. If WMF remains legally responsible, then how can disputes with WMF be resolved?
As is so common, on all sides, on-wiki, it is imagined that the solution to any problem is getting rid of the troll who is thought to be the cause. Does that work?
That was one of two reasonable courses of action, given the detail of his, er, conscience. One was to do what he did, resign, and not under a cloud, he'd already gotten the tools back. The other was seek guidance from the community and follow it. If the community wanted to unblock Kohs, for example, it could so decide, and any sysop could implement it. If the community wanted to block Jimbo, it could likewise so decide. Who would be brave enough to actually follow the consensus?
Simply defying Jimbo without consensus behind him would be wheel-warring, and he'd properly be desysopped. Given these options, and absent such a consensus, he did good.
I'm saying, so many times and so many ways, that the way beyond this mess is to develop the mechanisms for self-government, in ways that can't be interdicted.
You are laboring — & bee-laboring & bee-laboring — under a fundamental misapprehension about the Internet that Uncle DARPA built. There's a reason why those e-vain-essences called "domains" are "owned". Uncle DARPA is a raving militant capitalist who believes in making a market of the very air we breathe. He's still working on that — quite swimmingly, actually — but in the meantime you can be sure that the Wiki Medusa Fundation OWNS the Wiki-Plantation : block, sock and barrel o' 10 × 10^6 monkeys.
Jimbo was not elected as a steward, he was appointed by virtue of having founded the English Wikipedia community (and therefore the Wikimedia community as a whole). His current "Founder" status reflects these facts. — mikelifeguard@meta:~$ 01:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag"
Oh, if only they'd do that again today--after this Wikiversity stuff. "Steward rights" be damned.
If he was a decent and honest man, he'd give up all of his sainted "Dear Founder" powers. But he won't, and very few of the admins have got the guts to challenge him. Perhaps this is how that idiot Kim Jong Il stays in power. "Lack of consensus".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 24th March 2010, 10:59pm)
I'm saying, so many times and so many ways, that the way beyond this mess is to develop the mechanisms for self-government, in ways that can't be interdicted.
Precisely. And if that cannot be done on a WMF-sponsored project, then do it elsewhere, out from under Jimbo's thumb.
The present situation is escalating and metastasizing the WikiDrama.
As I see it, Jimbo is unwisely urging the participants at Wikiversity to transform the project from a scholarly learning community to a First-Person Troll-Shooter Game...
QUOTE(Jimbo's Recommendations at Wikiversity)
Privatemusings is itching to get "back in the game". Is he here to create learning materials generally, or here to push an agenda? I urge you all to be very firm about what you are here for - if it is to troll Wikipedia, this is not going to fly at all. If it is to create learning materials, then you have my unreserved support to the very end. Block the trolls and move forward, is my recommendation.--Jimbo Wales 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
How the devil does he expect people to form accurate theories of mind regarding everyone else's intentions, objectives, or agendas?
More to the point, how does a scholarly community define a troll?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th March 2010, 11:20pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 24th March 2010, 10:59pm)
I'm saying, so many times and so many ways, that the way beyond this mess is to develop the mechanisms for self-government, in ways that can't be interdicted.
You are laboring — & bee-laboring & bee-laboring — under a fundamental misapprehension about the Internet that Uncle DARPA built. There's a reason why those e-vain-essences called "domains" are "owned". Uncle DARPA is a raving militant capitalist who believes in making a market of the very air we breathe. He's still working on that — quite swimmingly, actually — but in the meantime you can be sure that the Wiki Medusa Fundation OWNS the Wiki-Plantation : block, sock and barrel o' 10 × 10^6 monkeys.
Jon, you are smart, too smart for your own good, it's made you inattentive. The domain in question is owned by WMF. That is a given, for me, I'm not contesting it, and what I'm suggesting considers that and works with it. They own the domain. We cannot demand that they do anything with it, or not do anything with it. We can only exercise our capacity to govern ourselves. "Self-government," here, doesn't mean strictly governing the wiki, it means governing the community, which is, the way you think, an oxymoron. But what is being proposed is, in fact, a rigorously libertarian, non-coercive government, the contradiction that is "obviously" impossible.
That's because, technically, it's not government. It is simply a method of generating sound advice. Who is advised? First and foremost, the members, those who participate in this "self-government." But the Foundation can also be advised, and so can any administrator or editor or anyone, for that matter, so thinks good advice could be valuable.
What's the power of advice? It has no coercive power at all. But that does not mean that it has no power. It has the power of consensus, if the structure is designed to maximize that.
The WikiVersity community is not the WikiVersity web site. The site is owned by WMF, which has a voluntary relationship with the community. Neither side is actually coerced, but, because the community isn't organized iindependently, it looks like individual members, or even factions, are. WMF cannot force any editor to do anything, nor any custodian or steward. It can only legally control its own property. Which is the domain name and the servers. It has a limited power of coercion over its employees (the power to fire them, which could be seen as coercive if they need the job), none over the volunteers that provide the bulk of the value spent on WikiVersity.
If the community is organized, with efficient communication, along the lines I've been suggesting, it can make a coherent choice as to whether to continue to work with WMF or not. It has other options, but if it is not organized first, those other options are not practical. But WMF would also benefit. Right now, it has no means to efficiently negotiate with the Community. Who represents the community? That this question has no answer points directly to the problem. The most basic elements of community organization have been neglected.
A group of 17 highly argumentative participants in the Election Science Foundation organizing efforts recently held an election by secret ballot of a 3-member steering committee, using Asset Voting, in the first known actual application. (Asset was invented in 1884 by Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll). It was done on-line, and it took about a week to run the process, and the result was a three-member committee that did, indeed, represent every voter, directly or indirectly through the candidate the voter chose. This technique is scalable, and could select a highly representative steering committee from thousands of participants in not much more time. It might be able to manage millions. Or more.
But I highly recommend that organization begin simply, with a mailing list, not hosted by WMF, but by a trusted editor as "owner," and if there is dispute over who owns it, don't fight over it at all. Have multiple lists. You'll be able to link them and find common ground, but the idea would be to rapidly, in a relatively small collection of such groups, link everyone. I use yahoogroups for this, let people put themselves on Special Notice status if they don't want the traffic. Encourage anyone who is concerned about possible on-wiki retaliation to use an anonymous account.
You are not going to be making binding decisions, don't let the sock puppet red herring distract you. The owner of each list can take action to appoint moderators, and the list can be as strictly moderated as the owner decides. Ideally, the owner recognizes his or her role as a servant of the community, and functions that way, but if an owner doesn't, and you don't like it, join another list or "start your own damn meeting," is how it's delicately put in AA.
But get connected, outside the wiki, in a way that can be managed. Then, with the connection, add in decision-making structures that can operate rapidly but still with maximized consensus. Really, the knowledge of how to do this should be widespread, but it isn't.
If you could trust the advice you'd get, would you contribute $5? $20? What's the value of the labor you already contribute? As to money, what if you channel all your contributions through a community fund, so that WMF knows where its bread is buttered? Or, alternatively, the money can be spent elsewhere, on a new wiki. (In such schemes, make sure not to collect unallocated donations; this would create a power center, something for people to fight over. If you do decide to start a new wiki, create a traditional structure for it, and elect members of the board and make sure that the organization, presumably a nonprofit (but it doesn't have to be!) understands that it's legally responsible to the state, and legally makes its own decisions, but is practically responsible to the community that created it and which it serves. And never believe that this service corporation is the community.
Create the consensus-seeking (and consensus-estimating) structure, and then advise yourselves what to do about this "Jimbo" problem or any problem. And then follow your own damn advice, once it is clear.
Not Aubrey's advice, which seems to boil down to: "You're helpless, get over it, and anyone who tells you that you are not helpless is selling you snake oil. Instead, listen to me! Now, what was I telling you? I forget. Oh, yes!: Wikipedia is Garbage, WikiVersity is Junk, and you are all stupid twat suckers. My message to future generations. Enjoy!"
Disclaimer: the last paragraph was added to satisfy local customs on Wikipedia Review.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 25th March 2010, 4:42am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 24th March 2010, 10:59pm)
I'm saying, so many times and so many ways, that the way beyond this mess is to develop the mechanisms for self-government, in ways that can't be interdicted.
Precisely. And if that cannot be done on a WMF-sponsored project, then do it elsewhere, out from under Jimbo's thumb.
Again, precisely. And don't wait to find out if it can't be done "on" the project. I'll tell you, it might work temporarily on the project, but you can do a better job, immediately, using mailing lists. Do it right and it's a permanent fix. Do it less well, and it might still help immediately, but fade away and not be a protection against future problems. I'd say, it isn't any more work to do it right, maybe even less work.
QUOTE
The present situation is escalating and metastasizing the WikiDrama.
As I see it, Jimbo is unwisely urging the participants at Wikiversity to transform the project from a scholarly learning community to a First-Person Troll-Shooter Game...
QUOTE(Jimbo's Recommendations at Wikiversity)
Privatemusings is itching to get "back in the game". Is he here to create learning materials generally, or here to push an agenda? I urge you all to be very firm about what you are here for - if it is to troll Wikipedia, this is not going to fly at all. If it is to create learning materials, then you have my unreserved support to the very end. Block the trolls and move forward, is my recommendation.--Jimbo Wales 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
How the devil does he expect people to form accurate theories of mind regarding everyone else's intentions, objectives, or agendas?
He's out of his element, that's all. If the community were organized, I'd predict that if Jimbo came and did what he'd did, it would be immediately recognized that he's acting under color of WMF authority, the owner of the site. And so the community would create what was needed to negotiate with WMF. If it hadn't already been done, an ad-hoc steering committee would be formed that was highly representative. (It can be done without actually holding an election of you have standing delegable proxy in place). This committee would possibly appoint a negotiator to represent it to the Foundation. And then the Foundation would be presented with a "situation." The community would not be bluffing, it would already know that it has the resources to move elsewhere.
By the way, I'm assuming that the community does not support Jimbo's action. That's not actually know with sufficient clarity, that's part of the problem. Find out!
Note, as well, that it is not necessary that the community be in agreement. If there are large factions, they can each find their own consensus and bring that to the table. The point is to take this down to a small-scale, manageable discussion, with each faction having some idea of their own strength and that of the other factions. If there were a large faction of editors who found it impossible to stomach working with the WMF, they would have sufficient resources to start their own fork. It's a lot of work, but TANSTAAFL. It's generally in the interest of WMF to head this off, but if the faction has ideas that are incompatible with WMF values, it is then in the interests of both sides to separate. By the conditions I've stated, the fork would have the resources it needs to get going. There is nothing that would, in principle, prevent later merger if the differences could be resolved.
QUOTE
More to the point, how does a scholarly community define a troll?
That would be up to that community, wouldn't it? And that community's process for deciding things like definitions.
Actual usage is pretty simple, though: someone whom I think is present to disrupt the place. Which does beg the question: how do you define "disrupt." The norm seems to be "anything that doesn't serve my agenda for this place, and I Am the Community, that is, myself and all right-thinking people."
But, of course, some people are disruptive in a wider sense, trying to prevent consensus from forming, and some people are out for revenge and other personal agendas that are incompatible with community purposes. Calling them names like "troll," though, puts off discovering what's underneath the behavior.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
A number of recognized scholars have characterized Jimbo's intervention as "disruptive" to the point of threatening not just the stability of the project, but its future existence as a WMF-sponsored project.
That was one of two reasonable courses of action, given the detail of his, er, conscience. One was to do what he did, resign, and not under a cloud, he'd already gotten the tools back. The other was seek guidance from the community and follow it. If the community wanted to unblock Kohs, for example, it could so decide, and any sysop could implement it. If the community wanted to block Jimbo, it could likewise so decide. Who would be brave enough to actually follow the consensus?
Simply defying Jimbo without consensus behind him would be wheel-warring, and he'd properly be desysopped. Given these options, and absent such a consensus, he did good.
That's not exactly the issue for me, but certainly a factor. It's more a case of the part of the staff that seems to have unlimited amounts of time and energy to devote (namely Ottava and Adambro) simply picking up the flag and running with it. The more sensible types were burned out by the last round, and don't want to take on another one.
For me, it was just an issue of thinking about this stuff when I had more important things to be thinking about (springtime on a farm, etc.), and my choices were to (1) stick around and volunteer to be responsible for a project that isn't what I signed on for, (2) wheel war with Jimmy and do another round of drama, or (3) get the fuck out. Not a hard decision.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Wikiversity (and perhaps other WMF-sponsored projects) may simply be subject to polarization into two competing camps: Those who feel like defying Jimbo, and those who feel like deifying him. Currently, the second camp is in the majority, largely due to attrition of those in the first camp.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 25th March 2010, 1:55pm)
A number of recognized scholars have characterized Jimbo's intervention as "disruptive" to the point of threatening not just the stability of the project, but its future existence as a WMF-sponsored project.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
I strongly agree with the "deifying" equation. Look, you are dealing with a lot of children here and a lot of people not far beyond that ... celebrity is far more powerful to such minds. Jimbo takes over the hole in their hearts left behind by the debunking of Santa and the death of Jesus. Its American Idol for nerds.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 25th March 2010, 2:59am)
It's a bold move to suggest the removal of Jimbo, but not bold enough. Don't remove him, replace him, with a genuine community governing mechanism ... suspicion is that he and the WMF board would not actually defy it. But you won't ever know for sure until you try.
Is part of the problem not that the Pee-dia operates into a sort of popstar mental arena and being able to touch Jimbo, or be touched by Jimbo, as he crowd surfs to his next $50,000 speaking appointment is part of the addictive thrill?
Do people want a more mature democracy ... are people ready for a more mature democracy ... is the community equipped to run a more mature democracy?
Especially given that democracies actually cost money to run ... the governance invests in its community and the more that goes in the better the democracy becomes ... my answer would have to be no ... no and no. They are much happier, and more entertained, with their tribalism (and lack of accountability) playing out being marauding vikings chasing after pixels or raped and wounded victims losing them.
Wake up ... there is no investment back into the sustaining community, the Wikipedia is a medium sapping the community and eroding its values. It is a slave caste being exploited. The money and power is all going one way. A slave caste so keen to be exploited, for the sake of being near their god king, that they even pay voluntary taxes to keep it all going!
Democracy is worth shit unless it has control over the finances and 'control over the finances' should involve some re-distribution of wealth in order to equal out the imbalances within the community and ameliorate its damaging social problems.
As for Jimmy Wales saying, "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board." Its daddy threatening to take the kiddies' toys away ... cult-like fear-based control from their master.
Offered as a quick sketch perhaps worth polishing up into some better form ...
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:51pm)
I strongly agree with the "deifying" equation. Look, you are dealing with a lot of children here and a lot of people not far beyond that ... celebrity is far more powerful to such minds. Jimbo takes over the hole in their hearts left behind by the debunking of Santa and the death of Jesus. Its American Idol for nerds [....] It is a slave caste being exploited. The money and power is all going one way. A slave caste so keen to be exploited, for the sake of being near their god king, that they even pay voluntary taxes to keep it all going!
I think you're an interesting character, and you raise valid points (and I appreciate it!). But I don't think "slaves" is right - the median 'pedian may be young &/or naive, but they're willing. A "willing slave" is an oxymoron, as recently demonstrated by SB Johnny (and again, well done).
I agree with your strong agreement re "deification", and it was the very idea that a passing comment I saw - referring to the "GodKing" - might be something more than derisive snark, that raised my first red flag. I can still taste my slack-jawed horror. These aren't slaves, they're complicit novitiates, eager to be cloistered away in the comforting security of the certainty of His mellow tones (love each other, and get back to work. shhhhh).
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:51pm)
Do people want a more mature democracy ... are people ready for a more mature democracy ... is the community equipped to run a more mature democracy?
...no...nope...lol
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:51pm)
As for Jimmy Wales saying, "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board." Its daddy threatening to take the kiddies' toys away ... cult-like fear-based control from their master.
Is it? Or is it OT jYiHmWbHo threatening the impious with a flood? The pure build arks - only the damned complain.
Most remarkable of all is that any of this has to do with things ending in "pedia", or "versity".
Maybe adambro thinks that providing important information to Wikiversity participants is "vandalism" or "not productive" and worthy of the rollback tool. I call it silly censorship...Jimbo done lerned us well
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The pivotal person to watch is Hillgentleman. He's slowly drifting into the anti-Jimbo camp, and slowly ramping up his objections to rising level of uncollegiality in Wikiversity. He is not inclined to deify Jimbo, but he is also not inclined to defy him too visibly.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 9
Joined:
Member No.: 18,142
When Jimbo was a steward he was at least obligated to follow stewards policy. He would of violated "Don't decide" and "Check local policies" if he had to follow stewards policy. The Wikimedia Foundation should not have created and put Jimbo in the founder group without first coming up with some ground rules to follow for it:
QUOTE
Its roles in various Wikimedia projects are not yet defined.
There is no royal road to knowledge, and no place for imperial privilege in a community dedicated to academic discourse, freedom, and values. Mr. Wales continues to comport himself in a discourteous and disruptive manner that interferes with both the calling of teaching and the desire to learn.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
QUOTE(Quest4Knowledge @ Fri 26th March 2010, 5:58pm)
When Jimbo was a steward he was at least obligated to follow stewards policy. He would of violated "Don't decide" and "Check local policies" if he had to follow stewards policy. The Wikimedia Foundation should not have created and put Jimbo in the founder group without first coming up with some ground rules to follow for it:
QUOTE
Its roles in various Wikimedia projects are not yet defined.
Actually, he never followed those policies. He desysopped people on enwiki even while he was a steward.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:37pm)
Actually, he never followed those policies. He desysopped people on enwiki even while he was a steward.
Just looking over the policies, he still has that authority as well as to overturn ArbCom bans. I think Jimbo should have full power vs ArbCom but minimal against regular people (i.e. non admins or on non admin related matters). He should be a predator of predators only, as there is none currently.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:41pm)
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:37pm)
Actually, he never followed those policies. He desysopped people on enwiki even while he was a steward.
Just looking over the policies, he still has that authority as well as to overturn ArbCom bans. I think Jimbo should have full power vs ArbCom but minimal against regular people (i.e. non admins or on non admin related matters). He should be a predator of predators only, as there is none currently.
When is the last time Jimbo went against the Arbitration Committee?
And, Adambro has blocked JWSchmidt for one day, to assert dominance.
I'm not familiar with the specific customs at WikiVersity. On enwiki, the block would be a violation of recusal policy, except that Adambro could argue emergency (reasonably, this is an important page). However, that would properly be followed by an immediate notification so that a neutral admin could confirm or reject it. Presumably that will happen if JWSchmidt puts up an unblock template.
On enwiki, absent emergency, you don't block someone you are edit warring with, period. I have to add that this is the theory, which admins who aren't sufficiently protected by a substantial faction must follow, or if the editor you block doesn't have enough friends and doesn't know how to use the available process well enough.
For the adhocratic structure of Wikipedia to work, and I'd assume the same of WikiVersity, appeal from an abusive action must be swift and must be considered by neutral judges. The process for this was never really set up, but it looked in the early days like what was there was adequate.
Probably the biggest error was to allow AN/I to be a place where stuff is discussed. There should be no discussion at AN/I, period, just requests and responses to situations considered emergencies; a response would only be by an admin who is claiming to be neutral, and who is agreeing to investigate immediately, and the admin would then come back with an action report and close it. Discussion, if any, would take place elsewhere.
Imagine calling 911 and the dispatcher and an officer hanging out in the room and the ex-husband trying to break into your house and the neighbors and everyone who likes or dislikes you start arguing about what should be done. No, the dispatcher takes the report, assumes good faith (always!) and sends emergency services, as quickly as possible, with minimal triage. And it's all recorded, and if you call frivolously they will issue a citation and you could, in fact, go to jail. But they will still come if you call after you get out of jail!
This would be fast, would avoid a huge amount of wasted labor, and would work with the adhocracy. Instead, we have editors being hauled to AN/I for a discussion of a community ban, which should never be considered an emergency, and should never be undertaken with an editor who is not blocked, probably. If the editor is not sufficiently disruptive for any neutral administrator to block, what kind of discussion is going to properly decide, with uninvolved editors and administrators (as WP:BAN supposedly requires), to ban? What happens is that those who comment can be vastly overselected from those with an axe to grind, they pile in and create an impression of solid support, and few will take the time to investigate in the face of that. And a sympathetic admin closes with a ban. Nobody has looked at the list of editors !voting to see if there were prior conflicts.
Most sane editors don't keep AN/I on their watchlist, and how is it that the two noticeboards intended for administrators are where most ban discussions now take place? Why would administrators have more say about bans than other editors? What happens is that a circularity is set up. An informal ban is when no admin is willing to unblock, which is indeed a bad sign for an editor! But then, if there is a ban discussion, a small group of admins can effectively decide that the editor is community banned, and therefore any admin must go back to the community for permission to lift the ban. What administrators? Those who hang out, looking for editors to block. Sure, there are some who are neutral, and some who try to be fair, but the system collects sludge like a sump.)
Process. Wikipedia froze into a condition with very poor process, highly inefficient and often very unfair as well. That's quite a combination! It not only drives away editors, it burns out the administrators, they become more and more impatient and abusive, which does not,. big surprise, improve the behavior of the editors. I predicted two years ago that it would ultimately begin to collapse, as declining participation placed more and more pressure on those left. I have no crystal ball, but it does seem to me that ordinary process is becoming ragged around the edges, effectiveness of maintenance is declining.
On enwiki-l, it's being discussed, the administrator shortage. And the obvious isn't stated, yet, as far as I've seen. It is way too difficult to become an administrator (that part is mentioned), and the process doesn't select for balance, though it does select against controversy. It rewards lots and lots of wikignoming, which often doesn't involve serious dispute resolution, an understanding of how to deal with conflict without pushing the block button. The paradox is this: if it were easier to suspend admin privileges when they come into reasonable question, pending resolution, then admin privileges could be given out much more easily. The system is set up to protect those who have the privilege. Big surprise again?
So to deal with the situation, instead of in a manner that would protect the wiki, they preserve the principle of difficult desysopping (can't afford to lose any administrators!), even though easy removal of tools upon a loss of confidence would make errors in giving out privileges easier to correct. High-level tools like checkuser and oversight and bureaucrat are much more dangerous. With these, it would be even more important to suspend privileges upon reasonable suspicion of abuse! (But also much more difficult to obtain them).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 26th March 2010, 5:36pm)
Great, all the cabalniks are crawling out of their holes to vote against it. (People who have no activity on Wikiversity, I might add.)
That was totally predictable. There was absolutely no way that motion would gain "consensus", simply because none of the projects have any sort of barrier to participation, and these invading marauders have enough Wikimedia clout that nobody is going to accept Wikiversity claiming that they'd been "canvassed", even though if a similar group parachuted into Wikipedia to vote on some proposal they'd all be instantly banned.
This is, by the way, a large part of why most clubs require a prospective member to attend at least two or three meetings before gaining voting rights.
It's sad to see the shallow analysis. From Hillgentleman, his bolding:
QUOTE
Wikimedia Foundation doesn't own Wikiversity.
Really, who does?Unowned entities that host content are dangerous, they are not generally allowed. Somebody must be responsible. Who is responsible, if not the WMF?
I think that Hillgentleman has confused the WikiVersity community with WikiVersity, the web site. Jimbo acted with respect to the web site, and has no authority or power to ban people from the community or to prevent them from communicating and cooperating, as they choose, unless the community permits it (by insisting on handling its internal communication on-wiki).
Alcoholics Anonymous figured out, early on, that it was important for meetings to pay rent out of their own passing of the hat, because if they didn't, sooner or later whoever hosted the meeting would want to control it. If they are accustomed to paying rent, and someone tries to control them, they can go somewhere else. So a bunch of drunks figured this out by around 1940, and a bunch of academics don't have a clue? How does this come to pass?
Maybe they should go out and get drunk. Waking up in the gutter can be good for the soul, if you survive. Or ... maybe they should start studying and experimenting with organizational structure that could work for wikis. Think that might have any important applications? I'd say, start by looking at what the drunks figured out, it was brilliant.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 26th March 2010, 7:01pm)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 26th March 2010, 5:36pm)
Great, all the cabalniks are crawling out of their holes to vote against it. (People who have no activity on Wikiversity, I might add.)
That was totally predictable. There was absolutely no way that motion would gain "consensus", simply because none of the projects have any sort of barrier to participation, and these invading marauders have enough Wikimedia clout that nobody is going to accept Wikiversity claiming that they'd been "canvassed", even though if a similar group parachuted into Wikipedia to vote on some proposal they'd all be instantly banned.
This is, by the way, a large part of why most clubs require a prospective member to attend at least two or three meetings before gaining voting rights.
The discussion is technically not a vote, it's a poll, because there is no decision-making power controlled by it. The issue of voting rights is one that hasn't been addressed well. Rights are, in fact, controlled for some elections, such as the WMF board, as I recall.
Aside from this, I'm actually astonished at how many have been voting to remove the right, it is substantially higher than it would have been at one time. If I were Jimbo, I'd be concerned at the loss of support. On the other hand, it's possible that there is early pile-on of those specifically concerned with, say, the WikiVersity issue. I've learned to be suspicious of early !votes and it's one reason why it's often a bad idea to close something early as "snow." The later votes, consisting more of those with no axe to grind, may turn out to be quite different, and given the tendency of people to go with what's popular, it can really mean something if there is this reversal.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
On the block of JWSchmidt.
Adambro blocked after edit warring with JWSchmidt. As I noted, because this is an important page, the block can be justified an an emergency. However, the routine method for appealing a block is an unblock template. JSW put one up, see permanent link to the current unblock section. It was denied by mikeu (Mu301).
Eyebrows raise: see JWSchmidt block log. Mu301 should not have touched that unblock request with a 10-foot pole, unless inclined to grant it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the addition to the disclaimer page was proper. I think it was improper to edit war over it, and generally new additions to an important page should have consensus. If I was prepared to take an active role at WV, and saw it, I'd have reverted it myself. Even though it's basically true, what he was inserting, it's the right of WMF to have whatever disclaimers they want, and not those they don't want, as long as they have legal responsibility.
Mu301, by denying the request, is just tossing gas on the flames, there is no necessity for that except to kick JWS when he's down.
In general, I've argued that fast denial of unblock requests is a bad idea, unless the declining admin is truly neutral, not even a hint of involvement, if possible. If one is concerned that an ignorant administrator may make a hasty decision to unblock, a brief argument for decline can be put there by an involved admin (and should be left in place, I'd say, another exception to the rule of an editor being allowed to delete content from their own page.)
The system should operate so that editors have increased confidence that, if blocked, it will be reviewed by someone not involved with the dispute or with prejudice. Ideally, also, the reviewing administrator will display some compassion, even if declining to unblock; a common helpful move is to negotiate voluntary compliance with policies, and only then unblock. If the editor believes that nothing wrong has been done, it can take some work. And, always remember, the editor might be right, appearances can be deceiving. You are still, if you are an administrator, obligated to make decisions by the preponderance of the evidence you have, even knowing that it might not be enough.
If one gets to the point that no neutral admins are available, that's a different problem. Most editors will be history long before that point! But this impossible situation is exactly what admins who detest recusal policy on enwiki argue, that an editor will claim involvement to put himself in a position to be unblockable. Right. One admin per block. How many blocks does it take to get to the point of a serious shortage of admins, and has any editor ever gotten to the point that they were thus -- theoretically -- unblockable? And, notice above, I claim that Adambro was involved, it's obvious, but also that the block was proper under IAR. So if you are involved, it does not mean that you cannot block, but that you would do it with caution, and only in something that can be alleged to be an emergency. On enwiki, that would mean that the admin should immediately go to a noticeboard and disclose the involved use of tools, and request confirmation from an uninvolved administrator.
As to the substance, I'm sympathetic with JWS, of course. That simply wasn't the way to go about it. Don't poke a bear with a stick. Learn what bears like and need, and encourage them to inhabit places appropriate for them. And bear-proof where you live.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 27th March 2010, 12:06am)
On the block of JWSchmidt.
Adambro blocked after edit warring with JWSchmidt. As I noted, because this is an important page, the block can be justified an an emergency. However, the routine method for appealing a block is an unblock template. JSW put one up, see permanent link to the current unblock section. It was denied by mikeu (Mu301).
Mikeu was also in the IRC room. We were all there. I told JWShmidt that if he had a problem he should have discussed/fought over it in IRC instead of repeatedly reverting without bothering to find out why. Some others offered some more pleasant ways to put JWS's message but that only came out when the communication started.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
More on the block of JWSchmidt: I looked at the Talk page discussion of the previous block. This time, Adambro blocked and Mu301 denied unblock. Last time, Mu301 blocked and Adambro denied. I'm sure Mouton would know more about all this, the earlier flap seems to be about that affair.
This stinks to high heaven.
General conclusion: nobody is in charge. There is no process. As has been said, WikiVersity is toast, it may already be too late, but, I'm suggesting, setting up an off-wiki consensus process -- that could invite participation by the Legions of the Damned -- is cheap and easy. Wikiepedia Review certainly is not that process, it's a bar where people can hang out and commiserate and maybe dream about Come Da Revolution, or plot minor insurrections. It's not the place to actually put a revolution together. Tools here are inadequate.
But WR can install a big-screen and we can all watch. While chewing the wikifat and drinking the, what was it that Aubrey referred to? Whatever, Somey, serve it up! I'm thirsty.
And please fill the trough for our friend Horse, here.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 26th March 2010, 5:47pm)
But WR can install a big-screen and we can all watch. While chewing the wikifat and drinking the, what was it that Aubrey referred to? Whatever, Somey, serve it up! I'm thirsty.
And please fill the trough for our friend Horse, here.
Unnecessary, as he already has a big nosebag of oats he's been feeling.
I won't do it because I'm not an established member of the community, I'd properly be seen as an interloper. But someone who is established should do it. Or an admin should unblock, one or the other.
If it were me, before unblocking, I'd ask for an agreement to not edit that page anytime soon, and to, next time, not edit war, let the other side "win" for a little while, get help, and listen to advice, eventualism is necessary for wikisurvival.
Just leaving the unblock request there without action is also fine, whatever. It's not that Mu301 is wrong, necessarily, but that he was the wrong one to do it, and clearly Schmidt thinks that, and the situation is a setup for that.
It would have been important here for Schmidt's friends to talk him down, restrain him. If they goaded him and encouraged him, bad sign. Schmidt, I suspect, is on the right side, but has become impatient. Please, folks, give someone like Schmidt some hope. Start to get it together, don't imagine that these problems will just go away.
By the way, it was just an effing 24-hour block. I hardly even bother with those any more. Is it really worth the effort to get a neutral admin to look at what could be a complicated situation, just for one measly editor, me, to get to edit for an additional 24 hours? When I could, if I really wanted to, save up the work? Nothing really would need to be lost, except I get some R&R if I want to?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 26th March 2010, 5:34pm)
I told JWShmidt that if he had a problem he should have discussed/fought over it in IRC instead of repeatedly reverting without bothering to find out why.
I had no problem. I was editing a Wikiversity page so as to provide important information to Wikiversity participants. Adambro violated Wikiversity policy and used his rollback tool to treat my edit as vandalism. I explained that he had mistakenly treated my edit as vandalism and returned the content that he had erroneously removed.
At that point Adambro made a bad faith assumption and falsely accused me of trying to make a "protest about Jimbo's actions". I told him that he was wrong and that what I had added as a disclaimer was important information for Wikiversity participants. If he had a problem with the page content, he should have clicked "edit", but he abused his power and clicked "delete" and "block". His excuse for the block was bogus. His deletion of the content was disruptive, not my effort to provide important information to Wikiversity participants.
I specifically requested that an honest custodian remove Adambro's bad block. User:Mu301 is an expert at making and supporting bad blocks and the censoring of Wikiversity content. Since 2008 a gang of policy-violating thugs has been in control of Wikiversity, deleting content, censoring, running witch hunts, performing emergency desop actions when no emergency exists, publishing false claims about honest Wikiversity participants and preventing free discussion of issues in the #wikiversity chat channel. Every time Jimbo shows up and becomes disruptive it makes the local gang try even harder to keep up with the master. Adambro has been infected with Jimbo Disease....he's so busy stroking his throbbing ban hammer that he can't find the edit button.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:24pm)
Since 2008 a gang of policy-violating thugs has been in control of Wikiversity, deleting content, censoring, running witch hunts, performing emergency desop actions when no emergency exists, publishing false claims about honest Wikiversity participants and preventing free discussion of issues in the #wikiversity chat channel. Every time Jimbo shows up and becomes disruptive it makes the local gang try even harder to keep up with the master. Adambro has been infected with Jimbo Disease....he's so busy stroking his throbbing ban hammer that he can't find the edit button.
Synopsis: Two years on from the first round of this long-running conflict, John Schmidt has published his two-part analysis of the issues, then and now.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
Remember, guys--Jimbo is just the project's "figurehead monarch". You know, like the Queen! You know how every now and then the Queen orders someone executed or exiled based on a flimsy pretext? And how she periodically meddles in the affairs of government for no good reason, disrupting all normal activity? Well, Jimbo is a lot like that.
I informed Jimbo about the project on Wikiversity. At the same time, I posted at the discussion forums of Wikiversity and Meta. They did not respond, point blank. Then or now. On the same day and for some days afterwards the recent changes on Wikiversity were listing several days edits i.e. there was no activity on the site, someone had been building a project all about sockpuppeting and hoaxing Wikipedia for three months on a silent site with only the most cautious input against it and practically zero discussion. Some notable figures such as User:SirFozzie had left their concerns and opposition noted at the bottom of the project page which were absolutely ignored both then and now. As the project was concerning itself invasively with a sister site, it is only fitting that the sister site was capable of responding appropriately. There is no other site than Wikiversity I believe has the possible scope for an invasion of another site (to research what would happen) except for perhaps Meta in an altogether different way. In the "For removal" section above contributors are writing things like Jimbo didn't make himself available for discussion, with a quote suggesting it was the only debate he entered into, signed by User:Hillgentleman. Well Hillgentleman has been in direct discussion with Jimbo. Jimbo has made lots of discussion edits on Wikiersity and reinstated the users he blocked, once they agreed not to make sockpuppeting/hoaxing projects or to interfere with his trying to acheive that agreement. I gave Jimbo a Barnstar of Integrity for his reaction. There was no discussion before Jimbo acted and since he did, all discussion here and most on Wikiversity has been about him rather than the problem. While ye were all waiting to squabble over ye're handbags, Jimbo nipped something very small but significant in the bud. If you stopped him doing it again, what would ye squabble over next week? Didn't Meta close some of the simple.wiki projects because they were not a language? That was very good of you wasn't it. I must tell that to some of the Simplified Chinese projects also. Jimbo does more than just wield his mop. If you want someone to make a video about giving the laptops to 3rd world kids with Wikipedia 1.0 installed, who does the commentary? Who goes around giving lectures and gathering donations to keep the sites alive? Go and tell those kids and those investors that the guy who made and promotes the sites got removed of all privelidge because he stopped someone for messing. Kick him out and close the door while you all formulate a circular about "How we laid down the law to the last of the depreciated founders." They will love that over on Wikiversity The Movie (and I'm not messing go and see). Most people will not read this or will claim that they didn't understand any of it but that's just the way that some people rattle on. It was a matter of superseding neglect which is all that is so far offered by Meta and WV in the matter. Well done. Round of applause Jimbo. Boo Meta and Boo Wikiversity who have either reacted scarcely at all or only under duress.
Second to Abd. Is Jimbo a sovereign? The definition of "sovereign" is to pass down the law, ad finitum. Jimbo is apparently very little risk to the freedom of WMF which could not be said for this abusive dictatorial sovereign he is occasionally claimed to be. Jimbo is a head of state of sorts and so long as he has his senses, even he should have little say in removing that. The duties of a head of state are to review the law and to approve defense or intervtion. I would have almost inexhaustable patience for Jimbo even if he was vandalising pages because I am appreciative of the sites. If he wants out of it he should just have to wreck the place in a manner which cannot be contained. No rest for the wicked!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 11,463
[quote name='Jon Awbrey' date='Sat 27th March 2010, 1:20am' post='228630'] [quote] I informed Jimbo about the project on Wikiversity. At the same time, I posted at the discussion forums of Wikiversity and Meta. They did not respond, point blank. Then or now. On the same day and for some days afterwards the recent changes on Wikiversity were listing several days edits i.e. there was no activity on the site, someone had been building a project all about sockpuppeting and hoaxing Wikipedia for three months on a silent site with only the most cautious input against it and practically zero discussion. Some notable figures such as User:SirFozzie had left their concerns and opposition noted at the bottom of the project page which were absolutely ignored both then and now. As the project was concerning itself invasively with a sister site, it is only fitting that the sister site was capable of responding appropriately. There is no other site than Wikiversity I believe has the possible scope for an invasion of another site (to research what would happen) except for perhaps Meta in an altogether different way. In the "For removal" section above contributors are writing things like Jimbo didn't make himself available for discussion, with a quote suggesting it was the only debate he entered into, signed by User:Hillgentleman. Well Hillgentleman has been in direct discussion with Jimbo. Jimbo has made lots of discussion edits on Wikiersity and reinstated the users he blocked, once they agreed not to make sockpuppeting/hoaxing projects or to interfere with his trying to acheive that agreement. I gave Jimbo a Barnstar of Integrity for his reaction. There was no discussion before Jimbo acted and since he did, all discussion here and most on Wikiversity has been about him rather than the problem. While ye were all waiting to squabble over ye're handbags, Jimbo nipped something very small but significant in the bud. If you stopped him doing it again, what would ye squabble over next week? Didn't Meta close some of the simple.wiki projects because they were not a language? That was very good of you wasn't it. I must tell that to some of the Simplified Chinese projects also. Jimbo does more than just wield his mop. If you want someone to make a video about giving the laptops to 3rd world kids with Wikipedia 1.0 installed, who does the commentary? Who goes around giving lectures and gathering donations to keep the sites alive? Go and tell those kids and those investors that the guy who made and promotes the sites got removed of all privelidge because he stopped someone for messing. Kick him out and close the door while you all formulate a circular about "How we laid down the law to the last of the depreciated founders." They will love that over on Wikiversity The Movie (and I'm not messing go and see). Most people will not read this or will claim that they didn't understand any of it but that's just the way that some people rattle on. It was a matter of superseding neglect which is all that is so far offered by Meta and WV in the matter. Well done. Round of applause Jimbo. Boo Meta and Boo Wikiversity who have either reacted scarcely at all or only under duress.
I note the elision of any mention by him of Ottava's actions. The apparent derision of "process" being applied in an orderly fashion appears to be the reason for the "boo" comments he makes. (assuming "him" to be correct, change to "her" if not)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(R.T.G)
As the project was concerning itself invasively with a sister site, it is only fitting that the sister site was capable of responding appropriately. There is no other site than Wikiversity I believe has the possible scope for an invasion of another site (to research what would happen) except for perhaps Meta in an altogether different way.
Ironically, it was an invasion of Wikiversity from WP (mainly from IDCab) that started this intramural rivalry, a year and a half ago.
The score so far: WP 2, WV 0.
Kudos to Salmon of Doubt for leading the first invasion, and to R.T.G for leading the second one.
Wikipedia's gift to the world: the wiki witch hunt. Privatemusings was attacking Wikipedia. Witch! Troll! By the rules of engagement at Wikipedia, as soon as the label "troll" is applied, all critical thinking ends and the "troll" is attacked by the mob.
Privatemusing's project was a thoughtful exploration of topics such as sockpuppeting and hoaxing Wikipedia. The stated goal of the project was to help improve the WMF. The project was a search for an ethical way to perturb the WMF and cause positive change. I think his project was a success. The project showed the world that the WMF is controlled by people in positions of responsibility who can be easily provoked into emotional responses and abuses of power. Truly a great learning project.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
In the annals of great cross-wiki breaching experiments, it occurs to me that the two successful invasions of Wikversity by Wikipedians -- the first one designed, engineered, and led by Salmon of Doubt, and this latest one designed, engineered, and led by R.T.G -- brilliantly succeeded where PrivateMusing's cautious approach failed miserably.
Ottava has wisely suggested that, going forward, PrivateMusings look backward in time to historic examples of cross-wiki breaching experiments.
JWSchmidt has already written up an analysis of these two breaching experiments, and I agree with Ottava's suggestion to examine them more closely. In particular, in terms of these character-driven dramas, what can we learn about the two central characters who were most instrumental in conceiving and executing these two remarkable breaching experiments?
What can we learn from (or about) Salmon of Doubt and R.T.G, the undisputed champions of these successful intramural invasions?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Meantime, Ottava and R.T.G seem to be having some kind of argument regarding motives and hidden agendas.
It's not clear from reading the above cited colloquy whether Ottava shares my interpretation of R.T.G's actions, but it reads as if Ottava suspects (perhaps even accuses) R.T.G of having darker motives...
QUOTE(Ottava Rima @ Wikiversity regarding R.T.G's motives)
The admin on Wikiversity and now the Stewards know that when you posted to Jimbo Wales your misleading statement about a breaching experiment happening, you also posted that a possible breaching experiment would be to mislead and manipulate an admin or steward in order to get them to shut down a project. This is exactly what you tried to do. Such actions are unacceptable on Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, can you elaborate a bit more on what you know (or suspect) regarding R.T.G? Am I reading you correctly to be alleging that R.T.G had a not-so-hidden agenda to manipulate Jimbo into shutting WV down?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th March 2010, 12:15am)
Again, Ottava, am I reading you correctly regarding your assessment of R.T.G's motives and completed actions?
Yes. Your statement above about him being in a breaching experiment caused me to rethink what I saw in RTG's edit to the breaching experiment page where he added his own proposed experiment 3 hours before Jimbo deleted the page.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 26th March 2010, 11:38pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:47pm)
This stinks to high heaven.
Wow, and it only took you, what, 3,280 words opining on the situation to finally realize that?
Unlike certain others, I look for evidence before coming to conclusions. The stink is, quite possibly, superficial, because there is, indeed, a problem with JWS. A tad one-sided for my taste. I think I understand the feelings and thinking behind his position, but if this all to resolve, something must change, and it's not Jimbo. Briefly, it's us.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 27th March 2010, 8:53pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th March 2010, 12:15am)
Again, Ottava, am I reading you correctly regarding your assessment of R.T.G's motives and completed actions?
Yes. Your statement above about him being in a breaching experiment caused me to rethink what I saw in RTG's edit to the breaching experiment page where he added his own proposed experiment 3 hours before Jimbo deleted the page.
Let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying (especially in light of what you have posted on WV and on Meta).
Before R.T.G posted his alert to Jimbo, he (R.T.G) edited the WV pages, not to remove objectionable content regarding the conception and design of a possible breaching experiment, but to add a proposal for one that essentially outlined the one he then did, in actual fact, carry out. His proposal was to manipulate Jimbo into intervening in WV to shut it down. And you are saying that the evidence for this is to be found in his (now deleted) edits to the WV pages.
If that is so, then it would explain why Jimbo de-sysopped SB_Johnny, to prevent him from proving that R.T.G was acting in a duplicitous manner, and that Jimbo had been snookered into committing the very breaching experiment that R.T.G conceived and proposed.
Is that about right, Ottava?
I'm wondering if J.T. Neill, who is now a WV Custodian, can independently confirm what you allege, regarding the timing and content of R.T.G's alleged edits to the WV pages on the conception and design of nefarious and duplicitous breaching experiments.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:04pm)
The stink is, quite possibly, superficial, because there is, indeed, a problem with JWS. A tad one-sided for my taste.
I'd like to hear the "sides" that you are thinking about. My "side" is this: Wikiversity participants who have access to the "delete" and "block" tools can use them freely for emergencies such as dealing with an on-going vandalism attack. For non-emergency situations, there should be use of the "edit" button before pages are deleted and blocks imposed. Emergency desysops, when there is no emergency, are wrong. Threatening closure of a project in order to scare wiki participants into compliance with out-of-process intervention into a wiki community is wrong.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:23pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:04pm)
The stink is, quite possibly, superficial, because there is, indeed, a problem with JWS. A tad one-sided for my taste.
I'd like to hear the "sides" that you are thinking about. My "side" is this: Wikiversity participants who have access to the "delete" and "block" tools can use them freely for emergencies such as dealing with an on-going vandalism attack. For non-emergency situations, there should be use of the "edit" button before pages are deleted and blocks imposed. Emergency desysops, when there is no emergency, are wrong. Threatening closure of a project in order to scare wiki participants into compliance with out-of-process intervention into a wiki community is wrong.
The last time I saw Jimbo use the "emergency desysop" rationale was during the 2006 pedophile userbox wheelwar. Arguably, the "emergency" was that if they'd let the argument and blocks go on long enough, there were so many pedophile and free-pedophile-speech supportive admins, that by mere attrition they would have whittled down the number of dissenting admins to zero, unless Jimbo did something to stop it in three days flat. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Okay, I only repeat what was the going wisdom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Anyway, Jimbo liked the sound of it, which was mighty powerful. So here we are again, although not exactly in wheelwar and not exactly with pedophiles or pedophile encouragement speech supporters.
Jimbo has done it again, though. Feels so good. Reward and encourage a behavior and you reinforce it. What did you expect?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:11am)
Before R.T.G posted his alert to Jimbo, he (R.T.G) edited the WV pages, not to remove objectionable content regarding the conception and design of a possible breaching experiment, but to add a proposal for one that essentially outlined the one he then did, in actual fact, carry out. His proposal was to manipulate Jimbo into intervening in WV to shut it down. And you are saying that the evidence for this is to be found in his (now deleted) edits to the WV pages.
If that is so, then it would explain why Jimbo de-sysopped SB_Johnny, to prevent him from proving that R.T.G was acting in a duplicitous manner, and that Jimbo had been snookered into committing the very breaching experiment that R.T.G conceived and proposed.
Is that about right, Ottava?
RTG came into chat and I confronted him with the deleted entry.
There are multiple admin at Wikiversity who were in the chat. JWSchmidt was also present. He could confirm.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
So now, let us see if anyone else comes forward to corroborate your account.
Over on WV, there is that "Undeletion Request" for the pages in question, to enable the community to independently review R.T.G's charges against PrivateMusings. Now there is yet another reason for undeletion, to review your charges against R.T.G.
Failing that, there should be enough Custodians with independent integrity to conduct the investigation for themselves.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:44am)
So now, let us see if anyone else comes forward to corroborate your account.
Over on WV, there is that "Undeletion Request" for the pages in question, to enable the community to independently review R.T.G's charges against PrivateMusings. Now there is yet another reason for undeletion, to review your charges against R.T.G.
Failing that, there should be enough Custodians with independent integrity to conduct the investigation for themselves.
I have requested the ability to post the deleted content among the other admin and it was favorable. I have posted it so people can judge what he stated for an accurate determination of the matter during the ban proposal. This is the link.
I have discussed it over with other admin and I will post publicly the deleted material that RTG add to Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments/planning which has come into question so others can see what RTG said in his own words at 21:38, 12 March 2010. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
==Deleting a project without discussion== First you would need to find an operative with the sysop tools. Give them a quick story such as, "Some bunch of nuts are creating a project whose goal is to disrupt Wikimedia, would you just delete it for a minute?" Then, once it is deleted, contact the admin again, "Could you just leave it that way for a couple of hours while I check up on something?" Then after a few hours are nearly up contact the admin again, "The Wikimedia Law Enfocement Agency (made up for this experiment) have declared the project to be in ethical breech and insist that you leave it as deleted." The admin claims they do not know the Agency so you have your friend, an admin who has no contact with this admin, to send an email pretending to be from the agency and sanctioning the permanent deletion of the project. And then the whole project is permanently deleted and there never even was such a thing as Wikimedia Law Enforcement Agency.
===Deleting Wikisource=== A similar approach to deleting a project except this time the contact is made with a steward on Meta and the goal is to convince them to delete the Wikisource website.
Can some admin confirm that the above material was posted by R.T.G, and also confirm the timestamp, relative to connected events (including R.T.G's posting on Jimbo's WP talk page, and the time when Jimbo deleted the pages on WV).
I'd like to hear R.T.G's defense against the charge that he engaged in the very act (proposing a specific breaching experiment) that he then sounded the alarm against on Jimbo's WP talk page. I'd also like to hear Jimbo's testimony as to whether he believed it was PrivateMusing (rather than R.T.G) who had proposed a patently unethical breaching experiment designed to corruptly manipulate Jimbo into the fateful intervention that caused so much damage to WV.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
R.T.G responds on WV...
QUOTE(R.T.G)
Well, we have been going over it for a couple of hours with some of you on the IRC and you are probably right that the way I posted on that deleted project was questionable so ban me if that is the best thing to do but I did not post lies to Jimbo Wales talk page or have a guidebook to manipulating him. The project in question certainly was suspect and encouraged people to experiment on the first paragraph. I don't see what else I can have to say. I do not, as Ottava has been suggesting on IRC, wish to see the closure or even the disruption of Wikiversity. I have contributed no content to this site that I can think of or am I likely to be your most valued contributor in the future so do whatever you think is best and it will be no big loss to you. ~ R.T.G 02:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
R.T.G's comments above need to be compared to what he posted on Meta, where he took credit for raising the alarm to Jimbo.
I'm pretty sure Citizen “Rarin' To Go†is a breaching experiment in his own right — his raucous ragmanroll can be nothing other than a studied caricature of a Witless Wikipediot, maybe a resurrection of Wiki-Defender his own self — perhaps contrived precisely for the purpose of luring an even more witless Wales into the brier patch.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The interesting question at this point is whether Jimbo realized, when he went rushing in to WV to delete the pages, that the alarming material on those pages had been planted by the cop (R.T.G) who blew the whistle. Or, if he realized it later, why he didn't fess up that he had hanged an innocent man (PrivateMusings) on the basis of fake planted evidence.
The interesting question at this point is whether Jimbo realized, when he went rushing in to WV to delete the pages, that the alarming material on those pages had been planted by the cop (R.T.G) who blew the whistle. Or, if he realized it later, why he didn't fess up that he had hanged an innocent man (PrivateMusings) on the basis of fake planted evidence.
Because, unlike the Pope, Jimbo is infallible even when he's off his rocker.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
This is as close as R.T.G comes to admitting he bamboozled Jimbo, intentionally or otherwise...
QUOTE(R.T.G on Wikiversity)
These posts I made to the Ethical Breaching Experiments project were innapropriate, they were intended to be a tease, and Jimbo may have seen them and thought they were part of the project.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th March 2010, 4:49am)
This is as close as R.T.G comes to admitting he bamboozled Jimbo, intentionally or otherwise...
QUOTE(R.T.G on Wikiversity)
These posts I made to the Ethical Breaching Experiments project were innapropriate, they were intended to be a tease, and Jimbo may have seen them and thought they were part of the project.
As far as I can tell, RTG did nothing more than what is common community practice within Wikimedia wiki projects. In the context of Wikiversity, he seems to have participated in a learning project that demonstrates how easy it is to get Jimbo to perform out-of-process deletions & blocks and a stray emergency desysopping when no emergency existed. Jimbo's use of a convenient threat to terminate Wikiversity was icing on the cake. RTG should get an educator's award for his contribution to learning at Wikiversity.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Given that RTG skillfully bamboozled Jimbo into participating in an unauthorized and unethical breaching experiment, what do we learn from the episode? In Jimbo's ill-conceived War on Trolls, we see an instance of Collateral Damage, where Jimbo shot himself in the foot.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Discussion on Wikiversity)
Jimbo's use of the tools was directly prompted by the creative posting of RTG with a message that would lead to Acts of Jimbo being perpetuated on this community. Geoff Plourde 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That's what I mean when I said the steward tools are simply too dangerous in his hands, because he has too much past on his back, and more. But, anyway, how has the fact-finding gone? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I remind everyone that my actions taken here were done with the support of the Foundation and were intended to help you find the internal strength to deal with trolling and cross-wiki issues. It isn't your fault that you have been targeted as a community which is vulnerable to this sort of thing. I support that you clean house and strengthen policy.--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Wales, Did you obtain support from the wikimedia foundation before or after the event? How many trustees or members of staff have you discussed with? And how did you check that you blocked the right person? Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo: I object to you labeling an honest and Wikiversity participant as "troll". Please provide a link to the public record of a vote by the Board where the Board members stated that someone from outside of the Wikiversity community can, in a non-emergency situation, over-ride the Wikiversity community procedures for page deletion, blocking and desysoping. --JWSchmidt 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you imagine the Board of Trustees all being duped by R.T.G, the gifted uber-troll who not only bamboozled Jimbo, but the entire WMF Board of Trustees as well?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It is hard for me to believe that Jimbo still thinks he can pull off the Jedi Mind Trick if he just keeps spouting this "I was only empowering you poor scholars" blather.
And I even e-mailed Jimbo last night, to make sure he understands that he was being toyed with, and fell for it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, and tackle box.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
While we're waiting to learn how JzG contributed to the (now deleted) pages of the Ethical Breaching Experiment on Wikiversity, we can appreciate his perspective here:
QUOTE(JzG on the Meta discussion on the Founder's Flag RfC)
If the Wikiversity folks want to go around telling people how to undermine Wikipedia then, as Jimbo says, they can do it on someone else's servers and someone else's dime. Pretty simple, really, and not actually that controversial. JzG 13:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that EN Wikiversity is — how you say? — toast.
The bees are are swarming and it's only a matter of time — posting a poll on Meta had to be the dumbest thing anyone ever did — the Main (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif) Scream culture of Wikipedia envies, fears, and hates academic freedom and academic values with every nøørøn of its beeswix brain.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 29th March 2010, 1:54pm)
Seth no longer works for the Guardian and I do not know if he still works in anything related to Wikipedia type matters (confirming what Kohs stated).
FWIW, I'm going to do a WR blog post on this one, probably tonight if I can get an hour or two to write it. True, it's just Wikiversity, but it has almost everything - the arrogance, the hypocrisy, the incompetence, the principled reactions being dismissively swept aside by hard-line old-guard cabalists eager to show their loyalty to Der Jimbo... If I were a tech-media reporter looking for a good Jimbo-related story, I could do a LOT worse.
Still, the lack of reaction to the blog post about Binmore/Lee Dennison tends to suggest that most tech-media reporters don't quite share my estimation of what constitutes a good story. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)
It is within the power of WV to put a stop to that by banning the trolls. You have to ask yourself if you want to be a serious project, or not.--Jimbo Wales 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 29th March 2010, 11:26pm)
Rima, that's excellent. Your disapproval is music to my ears. I know now that the e-mail was perfectly suited for that fool.
So taunting is more satisfying to you than trying to figure out the problems and stop them before they happen or cause things to get so out of hand there is no return? Kohs, you keep getting banned because you keep focusing on trying to make trouble to prove you are right instead of trying to fix problems.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 29th March 2010, 7:41pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 29th March 2010, 11:26pm)
Rima, that's excellent. Your disapproval is music to my ears. I know now that the e-mail was perfectly suited for that fool.
So taunting is more satisfying to you than trying to figure out the problems and stop them before they happen or cause things to get so out of hand there is no return? Kohs, you keep getting banned because you keep focusing on trying to make trouble to prove you are right instead of trying to fix problems.
You may vaguely recall an attempt, some years ago, to diagnose and fix a number of problems. Those efforts failed, and since then, things have gotten even worse and even harder to fix.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Given the ease with which RTG breached Jimbo's defenses against being trolled, I don't see any obvious way to go about correcting the problem.
In the real world, the defense against being caught up in a delusional or trivially disprovable belief is to embrace, employ, and adopt the scientific method.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 29th March 2010, 8:37pm)
In the real world, the defense against being caught up in a delusional or trivially disprovable belief is to embrace, employ, and adopt the scientific method.
Jimbo doesn't seem inclined to learn to do that.
Dude, Jimbo was an options trader. Have you ever met a group of people more prone to being caught up in delusional beliefs? "Real estate never loses value."
Jimbo doesn't want people using the scientific method, or really any sort of rational process, in connection with Wikipedia because, on some level, he knows that Wikipedia is fundamentally founded in the irrational belief of an impossibility, and anyone who stops to look at it will realize this and run screaming from the room.
One of the interesting things about con men is that they are typically the easiest to con. You'd think that being good at the sort of manipulative techniques that con men use would give you some immunity to them, but in practice it actually seems to make them even more vulnerable to them. I've seen this over and over again, in all sorts of situations. It's therefore totally unsurprising that it's terribly easy to troll Jimbo.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Those of us who didn't run screaming from the room (and thus had to be unceremoniously escorted out the door) had the audacity to imagine that the participants in a project to compile "the sum of all human knowledge" were also interested in engaging in the learning process which drives the discovery of all human knowledge.
It astonished me to discover just how resistant to learning were the Wikipedians whom I encountered in my sojourn in their strange world.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
It's a madhouse of lunatic social drama!
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 30th March 2010, 10:05am)
It's all a bit too silly to follow.
Ahem...
QUOTE(Jimbo's admonishment to SBJ)
It is within the power of WV to put a stop to that by banning the trolls. You have to ask yourself if you want to be a serious project, or not.--Jimbo Wales 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that silliness is the norm in the Wikisphere.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
In an authentic academic community, when a scholar puts forth a thesis, it is customary to invite review, criticism, and questions in an exercise known as a "thesis defense."
It is quite amusing to observe characters like Jimbo, RTG, and Adambro when they are asked by real scholars to defend their theses in Wikiversity.
But after the amusement wanes, it all becomes rather sad and pathetic.
In an authentic academic community, when a scholar puts forth a thesis, it is customary to invite review, criticism, and questions in an exercise known as a "thesis defense."
It is quite amusing to observe characters like Jimbo, RTG, and Adambro when they are asked by real scholars to defend their theses in Wikiversity.
But after the amusement wanes, it all becomes rather sad and pathetic.
Well, the whole idea of having an academic community full of pseudonyms is pretty ludicrous to start with, but when you add the fact that the preponderance of the administrative power has somehow been mysteriously transferred to the unknown and the unqualified then it goes way beyond ludicrous.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 3rd April 2010, 2:58pm)
the preponderance of the administrative power has somehow been mysteriously transferred to the unknown and the unqualified then it goes way beyond ludicrous.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 3rd April 2010, 10:01am)
Are you saying no one knows me? : (
Aren't you best known (under your real name) as an online non-secular opinion columnist? I'm sure you'll have literary criticism/history publications under your belt soon enough if that's what your goal is (assuming you don't have some already), but I don't recall you being a faculty member or institutional administrator anywhere...?
At the risk of offending some fairly nice people here, I do think we've been sort of pussyfooting around this whole issue of whether or not something like Wikiversity can ever be viewed as some sort of legitimate educational institution, even if Jimbo and people like Adambro and RTG weren't involved with it. It seems absurd almost to the point of bizarro-world surrealism to think that it could, even with qualified educators making most of the content-related decisions... but if we grant that it is absurd, then we also probably have to grant that Jimbo's involvement isn't really all that inappropriate, qualifications-wise. (I'm not saying it's good, mind you.)
I realize that online universities do exist out there, some of which are accredited degree-giving institutions. So yes, it might be theoretically possible to make Wikiversity into something more than just another wiki, but I personally don't see any of those things ever happening even if it does get out from under the Wikimedia yoke.
What does strike me as a useful role for Wikiversity would be for it to be a facilitator for studies of online behavior and social dynamics, since those are things that might actually make less sense to teach in a traditional classroom setting than they do in a collaborative web environment. But it doesn't look like Jimbo & Co. like that idea, since it might necessarily entail studying their own operation.
the preponderance of the administrative power has somehow been mysteriously transferred to the unknown and the unqualified then it goes way beyond ludicrous.
Are you saying no one knows me? : (
I can't even keep track of Individual Pseud's current Gender Identification, much less keep a MySQL file of their real world nonce-names.
Informed consent Geoff Plourde 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Be Careful What You Wish For. The whole Wikipedia environment is by design a Cultural Experiment, and there is every good reason that teachers who send their students into the Wikipedia Field should get their local human subjects committees to sign-off on the field experience, which would require each student — or student's guardian in the case of minors — to sign informed consent waivers. Jon Awbrey 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The real irony here is that many of the people expressing these concerns have spent the last half decade publicly calling for Mr. Wales to exhibit decisive leadership in fixing the BLP problem on Wikipedia — instead of doing that he has chosen to strong-arm the people who are documenting the seriousness of the problem.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 3rd April 2010, 8:46am)
a useful role for Wikiversity would be for it to be a facilitator for studies of online behavior and social dynamics, since those are things that might actually make less sense to teach in a traditional classroom setting than they do in a collaborative web environment.
It would be nice if Wikiversity was a place where participants could freely explore their personal learning goals. Sadly, there have always been a large number of people who think Wikiversity should only concern itself with those topics that are commonly found in conventional educational institutions. During Jimbo's recent intervention at Wikiversity he suggested this formula (I'm too lazy to look it up and quote from the edit history, so this is a rough approximation): any non-conventional learning projects at Wikiversity should be subjected to extra scrutiny. I could probably agree to those terms as long as "extra scrutiny" did not mean calling the creators of the projects "troll", blocking them from editing and deleting their work...all without discussion.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sun 4th April 2010, 12:13am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 3rd April 2010, 8:46am)
a useful role for Wikiversity would be for it to be a facilitator for studies of online behavior and social dynamics, since those are things that might actually make less sense to teach in a traditional classroom setting than they do in a collaborative web environment.
It would be nice if Wikiversity was a place where participants could freely explore their personal learning goals. Sadly, there have always been a large number of people who think Wikiversity should only concern itself with those topics that are commonly found in conventional educational institutions. During Jimbo's recent intervention at Wikiversity he suggested this formula (I'm too lazy to look it up and quote from the edit history, so this is a rough approximation): any non-conventional learning projects at Wikiversity should be subjected to extra scrutiny. I could probably agree to those terms as long as "extra scrutiny" did not mean calling the creators of the projects "troll", blocking them from editing and deleting their work...all without discussion.
Wikipedia Studies are not uncommon in both HS and college courses. There are graduate theses on WP-related subjects, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10
Joined:
Member No.: 831
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd April 2010, 9:13pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 3rd April 2010, 8:46am)
a useful role for Wikiversity would be for it to be a facilitator for studies of online behavior and social dynamics, since those are things that might actually make less sense to teach in a traditional classroom setting than they do in a collaborative web environment.
It would be nice if Wikiversity was a place where participants could freely explore their personal learning goals. Sadly, there have always been a large number of people who think Wikiversity should only concern itself with those topics that are commonly found in conventional educational institutions. During Jimbo's recent intervention at Wikiversity he suggested this formula (I'm too lazy to look it up and quote from the edit history, so this is a rough approximation): any non-conventional learning projects at Wikiversity should be subjected to extra scrutiny. I could probably agree to those terms as long as "extra scrutiny" did not mean calling the creators of the projects "troll", blocking them from editing and deleting their work...all without discussion.
I agree. the usage of the word "troll" is being thrown around far too easily these days. I know what a real troll looks like, and the usage in this context is frankly insulting to many well meaning users.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Geo.plrd @ Sun 4th April 2010, 3:42am)
The usage of the word "troll" is being thrown around far too easily these days. I know what a real troll looks like, and the usage in this context is frankly insulting to many well meaning users.
I think this open letter is a perfect example of what is wrong with Wikiversity. Where most Wikimedia projets serve some useful purpose (as an encyclopedia, dictionary, free media repository, quote collection, etc), Wikiversity serves none. It is simply a haven for trolls banned from other projects, who migrate here to continue whatever behavior got them banned originally. I think it's long past time to shut the entire project down. I have created a petition to the Board of Trustees. Anyone who agrees with me that Wikiversity should be shut down should sign the petition. Raul654 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this message is a perfect example of what is wrong with wikipedians jumping into wikiversity, not understanding what is going on and passing judgements. A simple search would reveal such pages as wikiversity:mission and Wikiversity:Approved_Wikiversity_project_proposal#Mission, and Wikiversity:Main Page. A simple question on the colloquium would lead you to wikiversity:school and university projects and betawikiversity:brick and mortar collaboration. While you may or may not agree with what are done on these projects, it is folly to speak with such volume without even being aware of them. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
QUOTE(Cla68 on Raul's Petition to Close Wikiversity)
Wikiversity probably does need to develop a better vision statement and mission plan, but that doesn't mean that it should be shut down. As pointed out above, all of the wiki projects have serious operational, administrative, and ethical issues, including en.Wikipedia with things like cabalism, BLP issues, reliability, problematic vested contributors, due process, treatment of whistleblowers, etc. If Wikiversity helps develop some solutions to these issues, which it has the potential to do, then it will have added value to the enterprise. Cla68 01:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
My prediction: this will lead nowhere. There is no "appeasement" of Mark Pellegrini.
He is a troll himself---who just happens to have manipulated his way into the inner circle of Wiki-freakies. I can easily envision him on a forum, screaming obscenities and threats at people he disagrees with.
Someday, social-media researchers who wish to find an example of a major Web. 2.0 open project that was run by trolls....will probably take Wikipedia as their gold standard.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
I wonder how the English Wikipedians would like it if Wikiversity members came over to their site and demanded they be shut down for harboring trolls, banned users, and vandals?
I can honestly remember seeing on the mailing list how some Wikipedians were mad at Commons and felt that it needed to be taken over and "fixed." The same was said of WikiQuote. Now, the Eye of Jimbo is fixed on Wikiversity. The arrogance of English Wikipedians as the nobles or betters of those in other WMF projects is truly sickening.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 4th April 2010, 10:44pm)
The arrogance of English Wikipedians as the nobles or betters of those in other WMF projects is truly sickening.
Many Wikipedians see the other projects as beneficial only to the extent that they are useful to Wikipedia. E.g. Wiktionary and Wikinews are useful because they can be used to offload certain types of "unwanted" content (dictionary definitions and current events reporting, respectively). Wikisource and Wikiquote serve similar purposes. I'm surprised that they haven't realized that Wikiversity is the obvious place to dump original researchers, but I suppose it's more fun to just play whackamole with them.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The Hamartian Chronicles
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 5th April 2010, 6:08am)
I wonder if Raul realizes how childish he looks, or if he just thinks everyone else is a troll.
One of the fascinating aspects of Greek Tragedy is that the would-be hero suffers from the classic character flaw (hamartia) of arrogance (hubris). This character flaw compels them to undertake an ill-advised quest to avoid what they most dread. But the Fates are against the would-be hero, and he ironically brings about the very events he most seeks to avoid. Like Charlie Brown, he ends up becoming the goat rather than the hero.
In these hero-goat reversals, consider the roles, thus far, of RTG and Jimbo. Who sees them as the hero? Who sees them as the goat? How do they see themselves?
And more to the point, will any of them ever sing their Dithyramb (goat-song)?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th April 2010, 6:29am)
The Hamartian Chronicles
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 5th April 2010, 6:08am)
I wonder if Raul realizes how childish he looks, or if he just thinks everyone else is a troll.
One of the fascinating aspects of Greek Tragedy is that the would-be hero suffers from the classic character flaw (hamartia) of arrogance (hubris). This character flaw compels them to undertake an ill-advised quest to avoid what they most dread. But the Fates are against the would-be hero, and he ironically brings about the very events he most seeks to avoid. Like Charlie Brown, he ends up becoming the goat rather than the hero.
In these hero-goat reversals, consider the roles, thus far, of RTG and Jimbo. Who sees them as the hero? Who sees them as the goat? How do they see themselves?
And more to the point, will any of them ever sing their Dithyramb (goat-song)?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 29th March 2010, 3:22pm)
FWIW, I'm going to do a WR blog post on this one, probably tonight if I can get an hour or two to write it. True, it's just Wikiversity, but it has almost everything - the arrogance, the hypocrisy, the incompetence, the principled reactions being dismissively swept aside by hard-line old-guard cabalists eager to show their loyalty to Der Jimbo... If I were a tech-media reporter looking for a good Jimbo-related story, I could do a LOT worse.
Somey, given the latest wrinkle (Raul's petition to shut down Wikiversity), I really would love to read your editorial account on this one.
Seriously - what was the emergency? I just don't see it. Indeed, recent analysis seems to suggest that Jimbo was successfully trolled, which is quite bad. I believe there is much merit to the argument that someone needs to be able to take emergency measures. However, best practices then indicate there should be a "separation of powers", and so that person should not be involved in routine disputes. Otherwise, they're tempted to use their god-power to avoid losing face or admitting they've made a mistake, which looks to have been the classic situation here. Note this last is not a personal criticism of Jimbo, but it's just human nature. Thus, their actions should be restricted to "clear and present danger" (and again, let's be realistic, I cannot see the disputed pages as being any such thing). -- Seth Finkelstein 04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Wikiversitan, Sj, who is also on the WMF Board of Trustees, comments on the Open Letter to the WMF...
QUOTE(Sj @ Wikiversity, commenting on the Open Letter to the Trustees)
I'm aware of the letter here, as is the rest of the Board; there's no need to 'send' a wiki-drafted letter in any way other than to declare that it's no longer being revised. In general, if you want a response to specific concerns, it is helpful to separate complaints and background context from specific requests.
The essence of this letter indicates some misunderstanding -- Jimbo's status as Founder isn't something 'granted' by the Board, it is a recognition of the role he has played since before there was a Foundation in founding the project and helping the community avoid major pitfalls. He was not acting as an agent of the Board nor was there any 'Board authorization of an intervention'.
I understand the concerns expressed here about process, and especially Jtneill's concerns about ambiguity of role -- there seems to have been a perception that this was an emergency when that was not the case. But Leigh was right when he pointed out the lack of recognition of the valid points in concerns raised. Nevertheless, concerns about the now-deleted project were widespread -- the deletions and sense of emergency did not arise in a vacuum. Calling the project "a thoughtful search for ways to help and improve WMF wiki projects" may be slightly disingenuous.
(While I'm not sure it merited speedy deletion, it certainly merited deletion in that form (for instance, it focused on how to organize and run such experiments, even though there was no background discussion of how they could be useful, nor any attempt to define ethics standards or a review committee to help determine when such an experiment would indeed be both helpful and harmless.) Gbaor has since recreated the project in a way that focuses on how to help, rather than how to incite -- Detecting and preventing hoaxes in wikis has not received any attention or contributions in the past few weeks, but it is certainly an appropriate topic. –SJ+)
Finally, the Foundation doese not 'own' the Projects as concepts or as collaborative efforts -- every Project is a constellation of contributors who retain the Right to Leave and the Right to Fork. We are all here, as individuals and groups, because we are working towards shared goals, and helping one another reach them through consensus and partnership. The Foundation tries to help by providing a comfortable space to expand and develop new ideas -- free hosting, freedom from ads, freedom from spammers and vandals, freedom from legal threats and abuse, freedom to try new ways to expand the world's shared knowledge. Jimbo was instrumental in keeping the Projects on an even keel for many years; if a project incites him to extraordinary action, it is generally worth taking his input seriously and working to resolve issues raised through consensus. And the efforts made along those lines this past month have been much appreciated. –SJ+ 07:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I have no idea who will stay or who will leave, but there does seem to be a genuine schism in progress now. And as disgruntled insiders abandon WV in the wake of recent events, I expect we'll begin to learn just how corrupt the inner workings were.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 3:40pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 2:38pm)
SBJ is now lobbying Sj of the WMF to help facilitate the forking of WV out from under the WMF umbrella.
Can't hurt to ask.
Normally that would be the case. But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 4:30pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 3:40pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 2:38pm)
SBJ is now lobbying Sj of the WMF to help facilitate the forking of WV out from under the WMF umbrella.
Can't hurt to ask.
Normally that would be the case. But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Well, the whole dang thing is awkward and uncomfortable. Better to just say what you have to say.
...and besides: who else was going to say it? You?
I think the WMF people really do have their hearts in the right place, but they're (painfully clearly) beholden to Jimbo. That's gotta suck.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:28pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 4:30pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 3:40pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 2:38pm)
SBJ is now lobbying Sj of the WMF to help facilitate the forking of WV out from under the WMF umbrella.
Can't hurt to ask.
Normally that would be the case. But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Well, the whole dang thing is awkward and uncomfortable. Better to just say what you have to say.
...and besides: who else was going to say it? You?
I'd be happy to say it, if Adambro would unblock my IP, and cease and desist from reverting me.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:28pm)
I think the WMF people really do have their hearts in the right place, but they're (painfully clearly) beholden to Jimbo. That's gotta suck.
This whole business of kowtowing to Jimbo is undermining the integrity of the whole enterprise. It tends to ensnare the admins caught up in the system, and then they become trapped in a dysfunctional and corrupt enterprise.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 8:30pm)
But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Or, more correctly, having a question asked by a guy who failed to do any of the daily maintenance work while an admin, effectively abandoned the project for a long time, and only returned to cause more drama in not only confronting Jimbo via inappropriate use of the tools but also resigning in a manner done to provoke more drama.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:48pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 8:30pm)
But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Or, more correctly, having a question asked by a guy who failed to do any of the daily maintenance work while an admin, effectively abandoned the project for a long time, and only returned to cause more drama in not only confronting Jimbo via inappropriate use of the tools but also resigning in a manner done to provoke more drama.
You're such a dweeb. You've got something on your nose, too.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 4th April 2010, 10:08pm)
Yes, Fred Bauder -- talk about a red light districtflag!
Well, I rummaged through Fred's history, and it has nothing to do with a "red light district." What it has to do with might be of greater concern.
Bauder was suspended for "soliciting prostitution," sure. But what does that mean? Does it mean that one asks a woman on the street if she'll do that thing for $50? Did he do that? Apparently not.
The solicitation was on the telephone, of the wife of his client, who was divorcing her. Now, there's a conflict of interest, eh?
I wonder what he offered her?
This has got to be about as embarrassing as possible. No wonder he retired. Would this mean that he couldn't serve as a decent arbitrator? Not necessarily. But what if a female editor asks Arb Fred for some help?
Ah, some people have all the luck. But tell me, Fred, was it worth it?
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:48pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 8:30pm)
But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Or, more correctly, having a question asked by a guy who failed to do any of the daily maintenance work while an admin, effectively abandoned the project for a long time, and only returned to cause more drama in not only confronting Jimbo via inappropriate use of the tools but also resigning in a manner done to provoke more drama.
Ottava, why am I getting the feeling that you have an axe to grind here? These are the kinds of charges I'm used to seeing from the editors and administrators who are the worst kind, showing direct and clear AGF failure, gratuitously imputing reprehensible motive to smear the "guy," while emphasizing a "failure" that was, even if true, not of any obligation.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 11th April 2010, 10:27pm)
Ottava, why am I getting the feeling that you have an axe to grind here?
The only one with an ax to grind was mister "I want my sysop status back so I can resign while still keeping the status on Wikipedia where I spent more time than over at Wikiversity when people were needed to do work".
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th April 2010, 6:32pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 11th April 2010, 10:27pm)
Ottava, why am I getting the feeling that you have an axe to grind here?
The only one with an ax to grind was mister "I want my sysop status back so I can resign while still keeping the status on Wikipedia where I spent more time than over at Wikiversity when people were needed to do work".
Not just a dweeb, but a clueless dweeb. He made an offer, I said "no", and then he tried to pretend I said yes, which made me uncomfortable. Now why don't you just make like a tree, and get outta here.
I can explain the birds and the bees to you too, if you need some help in that department. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 10:39pm)
Not just a dweeb, but a clueless dweeb. He made an offer, I said "no", and then he tried to pretend I said yes, which made me uncomfortable. Now why don't you just make like a tree, and get outta here.
I can explain the birds and the bees to you too, if you need some help in that department. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
SB Johnny's deletions. Mine. Those deletions were in addition to doing a lot of content, dealing with a lot of other drama (such as ArbCom), and the such.
Being an admin is hard work, especially when we were serious backlogged. You used it only as a political status symbol.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 11th April 2010, 9:38am)
Question is... if the Right to Leave is exercised, will bullshit artists like SJ Klein follow?
Cheap shot.
Klein's comment was excellently written, I'm impressed. Sure, if he's not sincere, it would be "bullshit" and he'd be, indeed, a "bullshit artist," quite a good one.
I'm more concerned about SBJohnny's request. It is way premature. Here is what I'd expect from Klein, something like:
Speaking as an individual, and not for the Board, I would consider recommending that the WMF assist the Wikiversity community in implementing whatever it decides, providing that, first of all, the community demonstrates a genuine consensus for the decision, that it is not contrary to the mission of the WMF, and, if this involves the creation of an independent entity, that the community demonstrate that it has the resources to take on the necessary responsibilities.
What I notice is that Klein refers to two important principles:
The Right to Leave and the Right to Fork.
The Right to Leave, of course, cannot be abrogated. But the Right to Fork is useless if the means do not exist to independently find consensus. One or two individuals can create a fork, put in a lot of work, and have nothing happen. It is often that way with established nonprofits that grew up at the crossroads; moving somewhere else is not so easy!
What I'd want to see guaranteed would be the right to discuss forking, openly, on-wiki, and whatever is relevant to that. (I've never seen anyone blocked for discussing forking though.)
But the WV community does not have to beg the WMF for this, it could simply do it, off-wiki, and probably with greater efficiency on the necessary scale. (I prefer using families of mailing lists, it is free, can be set up in minutes, and is push content but can also be made very flexible with subscribers deciding how involved they want to be.)
In the end, to have academic freedom, it is necessary to have more than one university. Universities can and should enjoy collegial relations as the norm. But they can and should have differing policies, concentrations, methods of funding, and participants. Freedom requires options, and if there is only one university, then excluding anyone means that the university is no longer universal, it no longer covers "all human knowledge," but only a view of it from one position, or whatever positions will fit on its hill.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:34pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:28pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 4:30pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 3:40pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th April 2010, 2:38pm)
SBJ is now lobbying Sj of the WMF to help facilitate the forking of WV out from under the WMF umbrella.
Can't hurt to ask.
Normally that would be the case. But the way things stand now, your request could be construed as an instance of trolling (having asked Sj a question he might find awkward and uncomfortable to answer).
Well, the whole dang thing is awkward and uncomfortable. Better to just say what you have to say.
...and besides: who else was going to say it? You?
I'd be happy to say it, if Adambro would unblock my IP, and cease and desist from reverting me.
I meant that I don't think they'd listen to you, due to all the baggage and all.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th April 2010, 7:07pm)
I meant that I don't think they'd listen to you, due to all the baggage and all.
Oh, I can live with them not listening. What troubles me is denying others who wish to listen the right to do so.
But I did find it ironic that Jimbo called me a "jackass" and site-banned me for not listening to his anankastic conditionals. Why didn't he want others to listen in on that memorable example of his bullying technique?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th April 2010, 6:32pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 11th April 2010, 10:27pm)
Ottava, why am I getting the feeling that you have an axe to grind here?
The only one with an ax to grind was mister "I want my sysop status back so I can resign while still keeping the status on Wikipedia where I spent more time than over at Wikiversity when people were needed to do work".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10
Joined:
Member No.: 831
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 11th April 2010, 4:05pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 11th April 2010, 9:38am)
Question is... if the Right to Leave is exercised, will bullshit artists like SJ Klein follow?
Cheap shot.
Klein's comment was excellently written, I'm impressed. Sure, if he's not sincere, it would be "bullshit" and he'd be, indeed, a "bullshit artist," quite a good one.
I'm more concerned about SBJohnny's request. It is way premature. Here is what I'd expect from Klein, something like:
Speaking as an individual, and not for the Board, I would consider recommending that the WMF assist the Wikiversity community in implementing whatever it decides, providing that, first of all, the community demonstrates a genuine consensus for the decision, that it is not contrary to the mission of the WMF, and, if this involves the creation of an independent entity, that the community demonstrate that it has the resources to take on the necessary responsibilities.
What I notice is that Klein refers to two important principles:
The Right to Leave and the Right to Fork.
The Right to Leave, of course, cannot be abrogated. But the Right to Fork is useless if the means do not exist to independently find consensus. One or two individuals can create a fork, put in a lot of work, and have nothing happen. It is often that way with established nonprofits that grew up at the crossroads; moving somewhere else is not so easy!
What I'd want to see guaranteed would be the right to discuss forking, openly, on-wiki, and whatever is relevant to that. (I've never seen anyone blocked for discussing forking though.)
But the WV community does not have to beg the WMF for this, it could simply do it, off-wiki, and probably with greater efficiency on the necessary scale. (I prefer using families of mailing lists, it is free, can be set up in minutes, and is push content but can also be made very flexible with subscribers deciding how involved they want to be.)
In the end, to have academic freedom, it is necessary to have more than one university. Universities can and should enjoy collegial relations as the norm. But they can and should have differing policies, concentrations, methods of funding, and participants. Freedom requires options, and if there is only one university, then excluding anyone means that the university is no longer universal, it no longer covers "all human knowledge," but only a view of it from one position, or whatever positions will fit on its hill.
I don't know if this is the right course to take, but it's definitely a discussion we need to have. I sense that certain people are unhappy with how things are going at WV and will never be able to get rid of their perception bias.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
So, just as a public service to our more casual readers, here's a quick rundown of what's been going on so far (CC = "Critic Community").
CC: You've got a serious BLP defamation problem there. WP: OK, we'll make a rule that requires sources for negative claims and allows people to revert unsourced claims all day long if need be. Problem solved! CC: Eh, not quite... That helped, but it's still going on, it's just a little more subtle now. WP: Prove it! CC: We have abundant anecdotal evidence, here, here, here... ad nauseam. WP: Anecdotal evidence is inherently worthless. Only statistics are meaningful. CC: OK, let's organize statistical studies on specific groups - say, US Senators? WP: Bah. US Senators are all wankers. Nobody cares. CC: OK, let's get a list of unwatched BLP's and see what happens if we insert harmless falsehoods into them. WP: Vandals! You're nothing but vandals! Just for that, we're going to take your list and add all the articles on it to our watchlists, and deliberately do nothing about them! So much for your so-called "methodology"! CC: OK, so... just to allow for some degree of WP community involvement and critique, let's try organizing an experiment on an actual Wikimedia site to see how the Wikipedia community reacts to certain kinds of non-obvious BLP vandalism... WP: Trolling! BANZORZ! BALEET! Jimbo-powers-activate! CC: OK, so what do you suggest, then? WP: "Find something more useful to get involved with."
If it wasn't such a nice day outside, I'd put together some links for some of the foregoing... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 12th April 2010, 5:58pm)
So, just as a public service to our more casual readers, here's a quick rundown of what's been going on so far (CC = "Critic Community").
CC: You've got a serious BLP defamation problem there. WP: OK, we'll make a rule that requires sources for negative claims and allows people to revert unsourced claims all day long if need be. Problem solved! ...
Somey, I think my solution is still the best - only have articles on highly notable dead poets. It works for me. : )
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 12th April 2010, 1:58pm)
So, just as a public service to our more casual readers, here's a quick rundown of what's been going on so far (CC = "Critic Community").
CC: You've got a serious BLP defamation problem there. WP: OK, we'll make a rule that requires sources for negative claims and allows people to revert unsourced claims all day long if need be. Problem solved! CC: Eh, not quite... That helped, but it's still going on, it's just a little more subtle now. WP: Prove it! CC: We have abundant anecdotal evidence, here, here, here... ad nauseam. WP: Anecdotal evidence is inherently worthless. Only statistics are meaningful. CC: OK, let's organize statistical studies on specific groups - say, US Senators? WP: Bah. US Senators are all wankers. Nobody cares. CC: OK, let's get a list of unwatched BLP's and see what happens if we insert harmless falsehoods into them. WP: Vandals! You're nothing but vandals! Just for that, we're going to take your list and add all the articles on it to our watchlists, and deliberately do nothing about them! So much for your so-called "methodology"! CC: OK, so... just to allow for some degree of WP community involvement and critique, let's try organizing an experiment on an actual Wikimedia site to see how the Wikipedia community reacts to certain kinds of non-obvious BLP vandalism... WP: Trolling! BANZORZ! BALEET! Jimbo-powers-activate! CC: OK, so what do you suggest, then? WP: "Find something more useful to get involved with."
If it wasn't such a nice day outside, I'd put together some links for some of the foregoing... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)
I nominate this for the back of the official WR T-shirt. No particular ideas about what goes on the front.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th April 2010, 6:33pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 12th April 2010, 1:58pm)
So, just as a public service to our more casual readers, here's a quick rundown of what's been going on so far (CC = "Critic Community"). [... intermediate steps deleted ...]
CC: OK, so what do you suggest, then? WP: "Find something more useful to get involved with."
I nominate this for the back of the official WR T-shirt. No particular ideas about what goes on the front.
Put the final WP comment in bold on the back, and then, on the front, say:
"Wikipedia finally comes up with good advice, see my backside."
A single closer, three times? Any other eyebrows raised over that?
In the end, Privatemusings has an idea, apparently, that will probably finesse the issue, which is quite what I'd suggest.
It may not satisfy the Forces of Evil, though, who want to devour your entrails, and not to be distracted by excuses like "But this was different and wasn't what you said was wrong!" Still, it should be tried. It's one way to find out if they are sincere, or to show that they aren't.
I see three editors who might have supported undeletion, vs. two opposed, plus one who seems opposed but who uses the opportunity to poke at the "owners" of Wikiversity. This isn't exactly a consensus that Adambro was firmly pushing with three closes.
Let's see, Adambro is a custodian, as is Jade Knight. Are custodians like WP admins, i.e., they have the keys to the place, so they can do whatever they like at night when nobody is watching? And maybe even if somebody's watching, but is a weenie?
Good luck, Privatemusings. I'm afraid that Wikiversity seems to be short of non-weenies, though. Therefore your non-weenie approach with this will be interesting.
When asked about his out-of-process page deletions, block of Privatemusings and emergency desysop of SBJohnny (see timeline of events), Mr. Wales claimed, “I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation†and “This is a Foundation matter“.
The Open Letter has begun to shake out some information from the WMF Board of Trustees. Samuel Klein wrote that Mr. Wales “was not acting as an agent of the Board nor was there any ‘Board authorization of an intervention’.“
Can the statements by Mr. Wales and Mr. Klein be reconciled or is it safe to assume that Mr. Wales did not accurately characterize his level of support from the Board?
Sigh. There is no clear conflict between the two statements. Sure, you can interpret Jimbo's statement in such a way as to make it contradictory, but I remember reading his statement at the time and noticing that it did not imply specific support, it could simply mean general support. However, was it designed to be misleading?
Klein's statement should be taken as authoritative. Wales had no specific authorization, he was winging it, on his own, Le Wiki, C'est Moi. As was fairly clear. His comments were bluster, "I'm in charge, Buster! Don't Mess with Me!"
If the community had some backbone (literally!, a central nervous system), it would not have been cowed. It would have negotiated with WMF, forking if necessary, and both the WMF and the community knowing that it was easily done, or it would have done any of many possible things, such as starting a Free University Annex that is legally independent but that hosts problematic projects and is heavily connected through cross-registration.
The key is that the community is the 800 lb. gorilla here, but the gorilla is mostly asleep, or busy eating a banana, or puzzling over whatever gee-gaw is in front of it.
If the community wakes up, nobody could control it. That scares the shit out of some people.
To make a clarification of something that Sj said here - before I took action on Wikiversity, I sought, and obtained, the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue posted publicly in support of my actions, as well. SJ is right that I didn't seek - nor should I have, nor will I ever in similar cases - a vote of the board before taking right action in defense of Wikiversity.--Jimbo Wales 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. How did Jimbo obtain "the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation" without polling the members of the WMF Board?
To make a clarification of something that Sj said here - before I took action on Wikiversity, I sought, and obtained, the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue posted publicly in support of my actions, as well. SJ is right that I didn't seek - nor should I have, nor will I ever in similar cases - a vote of the board before taking right action in defense of Wikiversity.--Jimbo Wales 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. How did Jimbo obtain "the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation" without polling the members of the WMF Board?
Simple. He thinks the power of the Wikimedia Foundation resides in one person, the Executive Director. What he forgets is that she serves at the pleasure of a majority vote of the Board. Thing is, the Board is stocked with such a bunch of pussy cats, Jimbo is de facto correct -- get Spider Hands' nod, and you're acting with the "full backing and support of the WMF".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
So it's your theory that he did not poll the members of the WMF Board during the 3-hr window from the time RTG alerted him until he acted to delete the project?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th April 2010, 9:31pm)
Simple. He thinks the power of the Wikimedia Foundation resides in one person, the Executive Director. What he forgets is that she serves at the pleasure of a majority vote of the Board. Thing is, the Board is stocked with such a bunch of pussy cats, Jimbo is de facto correct -- get Spider Hands' nod, and you're acting with the "full backing and support of the WMF".
No, it's even more simple than that. Jimbo considers the WMF to be his personal property, entirely beholden to him and required at all times to do as he wills. In his mind, there is simply no possible way that the WMF could fail to back him at every turn.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined:
Member No.: 8,237
Jimbeau's powers are either:
a) Whatever he can get away with.... or b) Some sort of special god powers granted from the Foundation.
I suspect that it's (a), but he wants to give people the impression that it's (b).
In her replies Gardner sidestepped the authority question. Klein hints that its (a), but then goes on to kowtow to his master by calling his actions correct and some further meaningless flattery thrown in for good measure.
What the wikipedians need to do is ask the Foundation/Board to explicitly clarify Jimbeau's role and powers, which is probably the last thing that he wants to happen.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(trenton @ Tue 13th April 2010, 4:11am)
Jimbeau's powers are either:
a) Whatever he can get away with.... or b) Some sort of special god powers granted from the Foundation.
I suspect that it's (a), but he wants to give people the impression that it's (b).
In her replies Gardner sidestepped the authority question. Klein hints that its (a), but then goes on to kowtow to his master by calling his actions correct and some further meaningless flattery thrown in for good measure.
What the wikipedians need to do is ask the Foundation/Board to explicitly clarify Jimbeau's role and powers, which is probably the last thing that he wants to happen.
The whole thing is quite Swiftian. The gentle folk of Laputa, and their servants with bladders and all.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th April 2010, 9:31pm)
He thinks the power of the Wikimedia Foundation resides in one person, the Executive Director. What he forgets is that she serves at the pleasure of a majority vote of the Board. Thing is, the Board is stocked with such a bunch of pussy cats, Jimbo is de facto correct -- get Spider Hands' nod, and you're acting with the "full backing and support of the WMF".
Granted, he probably does think that, and the likelihood that he contacted anyone else (other than maybe Sue Gardner) is negligible. But at the risk of seeming to throw cold water on the proceedings, why would anyone think it possible that the WMF board wouldn't back him up under circumstances like this? I can't imagine they care all that much about Wikiversity, and appearing to have a big split with Jimbo about something important is probably worse (from their perspective) than whatever PR fallout there might be from quashing "dissent" - they quash dissent all the time, and it hasn't really hurt them that much.
To make a clarification of something that Sj said here - before I took action on Wikiversity, I sought, and obtained, the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue posted publicly in support of my actions, as well. SJ is right that I didn't seek - nor should I have, nor will I ever in similar cases - a vote of the board before taking right action in defense of Wikiversity.--Jimbo Wales 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by Jimbo's reference to "right action" here.
Clearly, the hasty action Jimbo took in response to RTG's alarm was not "right action" but foolish and embarrassing action which hung an innocent man (namely Privatemusings). Nor was it in "defense of Wikiversity" as it clearly disrupted and destabilized Wikiversity and induced a schism.
A better action for Jimbo to have taken would have been "action research" which is an idea whose time has come.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 12th April 2010, 11:29pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th April 2010, 9:31pm)
Simple. He thinks the power of the Wikimedia Foundation resides in one person, the Executive Director. What he forgets is that she serves at the pleasure of a majority vote of the Board. Thing is, the Board is stocked with such a bunch of pussy cats, Jimbo is de facto correct -- get Spider Hands' nod, and you're acting with the "full backing and support of the WMF".
No, it's even more simple than that. Jimbo considers the WMF to be his personal property, entirely beholden to him and required at all times to do as he wills. In his mind, there is simply no possible way that the WMF could fail to back him at every turn.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 12th April 2010, 11:34pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:03pm)
"Wikipedia finally comes up with good advice, see my backside."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 13th April 2010, 1:34am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:03pm)
"Wikipedia finally comes up with good advice, see my backside."
Now why did that parse as "good advice, my ass"?
Because Lars is perceptive?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th April 2010, 12:45am)
Still trying to put some reason onto unreasonable people?
People are frequently unreasonable. However, that does not mean that their behavior is random, senseless. It means that they act from causes other than reasoning from "reasonable" premises.
We can study behavior from evidence, or we can react to it through our own assumptions, we don't need no stinkin' evidence. Once in a blue moon, we have the choice. Choose well.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 13th April 2010, 11:33am)
People are frequently unreasonable. However, that does not mean that their behavior is random, senseless. It means that they act from causes other than reasoning from "reasonable" premises.
We can study behavior from evidence, or we can react to it through our own assumptions, we don't need no stinkin' evidence. Once in a blue moon, we have the choice. Choose well.
See this model for relating observable behavioral responses to underlying psychological and emotional causes.
The other night, on my local NPR station, a scholar spent an hour on the subject of self-examination and self-narrative, suggesting that our identities emerge as our personal life stories.
Some of us are candid about ourselves and our personal narratives. Others are less candid, and live out their shreklisch life stories in full view of others without realizing the connection to the Socratic notion of exataseis.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 13th April 2010, 12:37pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 13th April 2010, 11:33am)
Because Lars is perceptive?
"Lar" singular. Short for Larry. Not Lars. There's only one of me (loud applause from back of room).
I'll think of "Lair," then, for the place you must live, don't trolls live in lairs?
Seriously, more of you, Wikipedia would be better off. The audience turns around and boos and hisses at that troll in the back. Doesn't mean you are always right, you make stupid idiotic mistakes like everyone else. Just not usually.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Well, I got my toes wet, contributing to Privatemusing's new resource, Response_testing_on_WMF_projects. He'd pointed to Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion, which was a real thing of beauty, I'd missed it entirely, possibly because I was site-banned at the time. If another editor shows up and supports this study, I'll make sure it happens.
I don't know the norms of Wikiversity, so I'll appreciate all the advice I can get. But I do have some clear ideas how to proceed without actual provocation. There will still be objections, quite likely, as there are to anything that can serious improve the projects. The discussion of NEWT on the Talk page for the en.wiki project was, in itself, fascinating, showing in many ways how the community has broken down and is continuing to break down. The initial test article was a real beaut, and I do not wonder that the project led to opposition. But that test revealed an admin who was violating several basic principles, and, properly, that admin's response should have been "Oops! I didn't realize! Thanks for pointing this out, I'll be much more careful," and it would have been over, win-win. (I have not researched what ultimately did happen, I've just seen the early comment by the admin where he(?) deeply stuck his foot in his mouth, by revealing exactly how whacko he was, to use the technical term. Which I certainly won't use on Wikiversity.
I'm suggesting that the wikiproject only organize evidence to make a review of what happened, for future study, easy to access. Conclusions should be avoided unless attributed. Serious NPOV procedure, rigorously maintained. Evidence, Yes. Conclusions (like "whacko admin"), No.
Later, discussion somewhere might reveal consensus conclusions, and that could then be attributed to that process. Again, it is really only evidence, and if the evidence is cherry-picked, as I write on WV, the solution is to pick the rest of the cherries. Hypertext can work wonders if the body of evidence gets too large.
The goal is to inform, not to condemn. Maybe we want admins to cut off the heads of newbies. After all, any one of them might be a troll. One of the sock accounts was explicitly named including "Troll." This project was, I'm sure, really fun. An important point.
The ethics issue: editors creating with their sock accounts (fully legitimate socks) were experienced editors, deliberately creating a defective article; however, not a libelous or non-notable one, merely leaving out what they would know to put in to make the article survive the phalanx of speedy deleters. The first article actually had the necessary sources, just not wikified in the best way, and there were other errors that might be common with a new editor. So the sock was pretending to be inexperienced.
Was this unethical? The general opinion of society is that such "undercover" operations are ethical, if they do not actually entrap, induce a person to violate rules where they were not already inclined or likely to do so. In addition, in every case, the intention was obviously to quickly clean up the article, to reveal the action, within a time that is far shorter than the normal response time for inadequate articles. The amount of cleanup required was little. There was a net benefit to the encyclopedia from every one of these "tests," with less fuss than is normally required for actual defective newbie creations, which are happening all the time.
I have seen experienced editors start a stub without references, and much of Wikipedia was begun that way. I might do it, myself, if I realize that an article is appropriate on some subject and I don't have time to pull up the sources, but I believe that they exist. I wouldn't deliberately use defective syntax, though, except as part of a test. But real newbies do it all the time.
Part of what the WV project will do, I assume (if that third editor shows up), is gather evidence on the ethics issue. It will not draw a conclusion, but editors may come to their own conclusions, and what this project develops might be something that an Ethics Committee would consider, it would ground their work.
This study, quickly done by a few editors, suggested further study, such as reviewing samples of actual apparent newbie creations and what happens to them. This would avoid the ethical question. That study, however, being absolute and not comparative, would have its own problems, and would require admin tools, thus requiring possibly biased participants, or a lot of fuss to get copies of deleted articles, the large majority of which are probably real speedy candidates. There is a reason why Mystery shoppers are used. It's efficient. Yes, the employees are deceived, but ethical use of mystery shoppers would not involve the mystery shopper seriously leading the employee into major errors, by a series of deceptions, unless this is clearly authorized from the start. I've had friends who were mystery shoppers (quite fun! -- and lucrative) and they'd have been fired if they harmed good employees. Really, the process is used to detect abusive employees, ones who are damaging the business, not those who are helping but happen to make a mistake once in a while.
(As an example of serious entrapment that might nevertheless be authorized, consider a clerk suspected of embezzlement. So a "customer" comes in and takes the clerk aside and asks to be permitted to buy an expensive item for less than the normal price, if the customer pays cash, nudge nudge, and says "Don't worry, I don't need a receipt." That's pushing the edge of entrapment, and could lead a clerk who had money issues to do something the clerk wouldn't otherwise do. While a criminal conviction might possibly be challenged based on entrapment, I think most of us would agree that not allowing this person to continue as a clerk would be quite proper! And the clerk would properly be investigated further to find out if the suspected prior embezzlement was real, based on independent evidence not obtained in this way.)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 13th April 2010, 10:30am)
Maybe we want admins to cut off the heads of newbies.
I still remember when new editors were welcomed to Wikipedia and friendly sysops took the time to explain to newbies how to contribute constructively. When Wikipedia grew rapidly the door was opened to sysops who enjoy playing the wikicop role playing game. Some of these folks learned ways to advance rapidly in the hierarchy while using the vandalism fighting tools to push honest editors out of the wiki boat....particularly honest editors who got into arguments with the established POV pushers who had taken over the upper ranks of the Wikimedia establishment. The dominant POV pushers of Wikimedia long ago got tired of defending their POV and formed into a kind of self-defense system by which opponents are called "troll" and bonked with the ban hammer. This has become a reflex for abusive sysops...the system is efficient and little thought now takes place before the "troll" call is issued...if enough abusers rally around then the "troll" is eliminated...regardless of what they did. That culture of abuse is what I call "Wikipedia Disease". It infected Wikiversity and now a few abusive sysops freely terrorize what should be a place for reasoned discussion.
"Jimbo has the Founder flag, with its associated privileges, and with the consent of the Foundation." <-- As far as I can tell, Jimbo lost his Stewardship so he simply had a developer set up the "founder" user rights for him. Is there evidence that anyone else at the Foundation level was involved?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 13th April 2010, 5:53pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 13th April 2010, 10:30am)
Maybe we want admins to cut off the heads of newbies.
I still remember when new editors were welcomed to Wikipedia and friendly sysops took the time to explain to newbies how to contribute constructively. When Wikipedia grew rapidly the door was opened to sysops who enjoy playing the wikicop role playing game. Some of these folks learned ways to advance rapidly in the hierarchy while using the vandalism fighting tools to push honest editors out of the wiki boat....particularly honest editors who got into arguments with the established POV pushers who had taken over the upper ranks of the Wikimedia establishment. The dominant POV pushers of Wikimedia long ago got tired of defending their POV and formed into a kind of self-defense system by which opponents are called "troll" and bonked with the ban hammer. This has become a reflex for abusive sysops...the system is efficient and little thought now takes place before the "troll" call is issued...if enough abusers rally around then the "troll" is eliminated...regardless of what they did. That culture of abuse is what I call "Wikipedia Disease". It infected Wikiversity and now a few abusive sysops freely terrorize what should be a place for reasoned discussion.
"Jimbo has the Founder flag, with its associated privileges, and with the consent of the Foundation." <-- As far as I can tell, Jimbo lost his Stewardship so he simply had a developer set up the "founder" user rights for him. Is there evidence that anyone else at the Foundation level was involved?
Trying to find out, I found some odd stuff. Supposedly Jimbo gave up blocking people back in 2009:
Politics behind his having Steward flag removed on meta, and how he gets it by the back door from the group that replaced him, here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founder
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
If you drill down, you will find some odd edits where, at one point, the request states that the WMF has requested this on behalf of Jimbo. Then there are later edits redacting that language, leaving it unstated where the request is coming from.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 13th April 2010, 1:30pm)
Well, I got my toes wet, contributing to Privatemusing's new resource, Response_testing_on_WMF_projects. He'd pointed to Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion, which was a real thing of beauty, I'd missed it entirely, possibly because I was site-banned at the time. If another editor shows up and supports this study, I'll make sure it happens.
I wouldn't want to participate on a site where my contributions could be summarily removed, with no notice, and on one person's mere whim.
I see that Abd is suddenly the self-proclaimed expert on Wikiversity, though his contribution history is slim.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:02pm)
I wouldn't want to participate on a site where my contributions could be summarily removed, with no notice, and on one person's mere whim.
Well, most web forums are that way - you put up a post, and if a moderator doesn't like it, *poof* - and if it piques them suffieciently, your account goes *poof* as well.
Would that mean you wouldn't participate here?
I don't know how things are run at Wikipedia Review - is there a community process there, or are you the God-King of your own domain?
If a directory or user page isn't to your liking, do you delete it yourself, or are there a team of sysops?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th April 2010, 2:02pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 13th April 2010, 1:30pm)
Well, I got my toes wet, contributing to Privatemusing's new resource, Response_testing_on_WMF_projects. He'd pointed to Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion, which was a real thing of beauty, I'd missed it entirely, possibly because I was site-banned at the time. If another editor shows up and supports this study, I'll make sure it happens.
I wouldn't want to participate on a site where my contributions could be summarily removed, with no notice, and on one person's mere whim.
I see that Abd is suddenly the self-proclaimed expert on Wikiversity, though his contribution history is slim
Thanks, Kohs, but, don't you have a little problem with accuracy there? Am I seeing why you might have had a little trouble on WMF projects? Like, "self-proclaimed expert on Wikiversity," when I certainly never proclaimed that. I'm just another editor, a new one there to boot, with a big mouth and a lot of experience with Other Stuff, which may or may not prove to be useful.
Definitely, I'm expressing my opinions now, seeing if it is possible to actually get a Response Testing project going in a way that won't get immediately shot down, but that might prove, in the end, to be quite useful. Why am I doing this? The usual two reasons, I suppose:
(1) It's there. (2) I think I could find Wikiversity useful for some stuff that's impossible at Wikipedia, that requires some level of original research. I have in mind a seminar about cold fusion that would actually introduce students to the vast amount of work in the field that is available in peer-reviewed journals, not to mention the ongoing work appearing in conference papers, some of which is excellent. Why is it that there are otherwise perfectly sober senior scientists and others who think there is something to this "pathological science"? Is it pathological science? What kind? Pathological acceptance or pathological rejection? (Both happen, and I have WP reliable source for that POV.) So I'm starting to care about Wikiversity.
I'm fully aware that I might run into problems there. Right now, JWSchimdt is treating me like I'm Big Brother trying to repress him. Moulton, if you have any influence over JW, could you pop him a note if you can? He is going to get himself blocked, I predict, for no good reason. What is he going to prove, that if you poke a bear in the eye enough times, he'll knock you down?
I poked WMC in the eye, knowing that the most he could do was block me, at the cost of his own admin bit, and knowing that the "poking" was only a harmless edit, only a problem for WMC because he had nailed his colors to the yardarm, to use his own prior expression about his attitude toward me. JW seems to think that I'm some advocate of timidity and being sheep-like. I've confronted three of the most abusive of WP administrators, and I'm not banned. Not yet, anyway.
PM is still tending to act up, when there is real work to be done.
If there is any hope of doing something about those Jimbo moves on WV, I think I know how to pull it off. But no way can I do it alone, and, in fact, no way that I should. It takes a community. So, folks, here is a chance. Moulton, you and Kohs can sit back for the time and kibbitz. If it's up to me, and if I'm supported, you'll be back there if that's what you want, in ways that will enjoy community consensus, and Jimbo won't mind either, unless he does have some hidden agenda, in which case he will mind, but won't be able to do anything about it.
The big question I have is whether or not there is enough left of a core of Wikiversitans who "get it," (or, even , if there was ever enough.) I'll know if I'm banned or so restricted that I might as well be. I'm not going to do anything that would legitimately lead to banning, but we all know how much protection that is.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 13th April 2010, 8:53pm)
"Jimbo has the Founder flag, with its associated privileges, and with the consent of the Foundation." <-- As far as I can tell, Jimbo lost his Stewardship so he simply had a developer set up the "founder" user rights for him. Is there evidence that anyone else at the Foundation level was involved?
JW, this has become an obsession for you. It doesn't matter. If Jimbo is acting outside of what the board allows, he'll take heat for it; if he doesn't, it means that the board is allowing it. You cannot force the board to do anything, and, I'd suggest, trying to do so publicly will just harden positions.
You have no credible power over WMF. If Wikiversity becomes more trouble than it's worth to them, the members of the board, they can, and, I'd predict, will shut it down. As long as WV is owned by WMF, this will be the situation.
I'm suggesting, JW, that you start to accept reality. Once you do that, you can start to understand what you can actually do. Before then, you will notice things you don't like, things that grate on you, and you will rail against them, with practically no effect. If you want to live your life like that, it's your choice. But true revolutionary action starts with where we are, not with some ideal state of how things should be.
To reform Wikiversity will take time, if it is even possible. It will take people who are willing to build personal connections, including connections with WMF Staff, until and unless WV forks. I'm suggesting, JW, that you get smart. If you want to protect academic freedom, act for it, and act effectively. Poking bears in the eye isn't effective unless you are fully prepared to deal with the response, and want that response. Like you really are ready to trap the bear and you need him to move in a certain way.
The old saying is, if you are going to shoot the King, don't miss!
But I don't think it is necessary here to shoot anyone. The idea that WV is in deep doo-doo because of Jimbo, or "abusive administrators," is really the same view as Jimbo's idea that the problem is those "trolls." If it doesn't scare you that I'm claiming you are on the same "side" as those abusive admins, well, you should be scared. It's true. It's the side of the view that the problems of human society are due to the "bad guys," with the corollary being that, then, we should get rid of them, and all will be well.
If we can just get rid of the Shah, we'll have a paradise here in Iran. If we can just get rid of the landlords, China will be free. If we can just get rid of the Jews.... Muslims.... fundamentalists .... commies .... Republicans .... and on and on. It has never worked, except a little, sometimes, and only when "getting rid" wasn't true elimination and merely a shift in power, and the improvement doesn't last, because the real problems are structural, or, often, lack of structure (which then sets up default structure based on common human behavior, which works when the scale is very small and not when it becomes large, it was not designed for that).
There is another side. That's what I'm working for. Not many do, on-wiki, unfortunately. That's another problem, and it can be addressed, but, as with all of this, it takes time. Take your time. Choose well.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:48pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 3:33pm)
Moulton, you and Kohs can sit back for the time and kibbitz.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:33pm)
If it's up to me, and if I'm supported, you'll be back there if that's what you want, in ways that will enjoy community consensus, and Jimbo won't mind either, unless he does have some hidden agenda, in which case he will mind, but won't be able to do anything about it.
It's not clear to me there is any community left.
As to Jimbo's presumptive hidden agenda, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:33pm)
It takes a community. So, folks, here is a chance. Moulton, you and Kohs can sit back for the time and kibbitz. If it's up to me, and if I'm supported, you'll be back there if that's what you want, in ways that will enjoy community consensus...
If you're talking about your FOAF/proxy/advocate system that you've been dreaming of, I earnestly wish you luck. I'd like to see that trialed somewhere. If I'm back and editing amidst a welcoming environment at Wikiversity before 2011, you get $50 from me (or to your selected humanitarian charity).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th April 2010, 8:08pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:33pm)
If it's up to me, and if I'm supported, you'll be back there if that's what you want, in ways that will enjoy community consensus, and Jimbo won't mind either, unless he does have some hidden agenda, in which case he will mind, but won't be able to do anything about it.
It's not clear to me there is any community left.
As to Jimbo's presumptive hidden agenda, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Satan knows, but, unfortunately, he's biased.
Yeah, I don't know that there is enough there to work with. It's pretty thin. Is there a way to do something like "show all edits for the period X-Y"? I'm getting a bad feeling.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th April 2010, 10:32pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:33pm)
It takes a community. So, folks, here is a chance. Moulton, you and Kohs can sit back for the time and kibbitz. If it's up to me, and if I'm supported, you'll be back there if that's what you want, in ways that will enjoy community consensus...
If you're talking about your FOAF/proxy/advocate system that you've been dreaming of, I earnestly wish you luck. I'd like to see that trialed somewhere. If I'm back and editing amidst a welcoming environment at Wikiversity before 2011, you get $50 from me (or to your selected humanitarian charity).
There are experiments under way, but mostly by people interested in voting systems, and nothing has come to the point of being used for decision-making process on a scale sufficient to constitute a test. Asset Voting was recently used to elect a 3 member steering committee for the group forming the Election Science Foundation and the results were quite good, compared to what I'd expect. (Three members elected with the full support of 17 members, as distributed through the Asset system, starting out with what was expected to be contentious.)
But I rather doubt that Wikiversity will change greatly enough within a year. It's possible, though.
By the way, it's FA/DP, i.e, Free Association (qualities like Alcoholics Anonymous as to operating traditions) with Delegable Proxy (which has been independently invented by about a half dozen people around the world over the last decade, as far as what I've found. It's similar, in a way, to Asset Voting, originally proposed by Lewis Carroll (yes, that Carroll, of Alice fame) in about 1883, as a tweak on Single Transferable Voted.) DP could be used in power systems, i.e., actual binding decision-making systems, but I consider it unproven. However, in FAs, power isn't centralized at all, they are purely devices for negotiating consensus, so it's safe.
In the day he sweats it out in the tweets of a runaway Wikipedian dream At night he rides through monsoons of glory in a sewerside machine Sprung from steel cages on Highway 9 …
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 3:59pm)
The idea that WV is in deep doo-doo because of Jimbo, or "abusive administrators," is really the same view as Jimbo's idea that the problem is those "trolls."
So, your position is that someone who performed out-of-process page deletions, made bad blocks of people who violated no rules or policies, performed an emergency desysop action when no emergency existed and threatened to shut down Wikiversity in order to enforce his actions is the same as the honest Wikiversity participants who he called trolls? Pardon me if I don't agree.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 11:41pm)
Is there a way to do something like "show all edits for the period X-Y"?
Yes, but it won't show traffic from the wholesale deletions of entire projects and userspace discussion pages. However, you can sometimes find relics pointing to those wholesale deletions. And sometimes a friendly admin will rescue deleted pages and send them to an aggrieved party for their personal off-wiki archives.
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 11:41pm)
I'm getting a bad feeling.
That's not surprising. Is it shpilkes in the geneckteckessoink?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 15th April 2010, 7:56am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th April 2010, 8:18pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Wed 14th April 2010, 2:15pm)
I don't know how things are run at Wikipedia Review - is there a community process there, or are you the God-King of your own domain?
If a directory or user page isn't to your liking, do you delete it yourself, or are there a team of sysops?
I'm sorry... who are you, again?
I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.
"Same question" refers to "Who is Zoloft?" or "Greg, how do you keep that awesome Wikipedia Review site running so smoothly, without all the drama and dysfunction of the Wikipedia mess?"
Neither Gregory Kohs nor Wikipedia Review.com are responsible for the contents of any of the pages on Wikipedia Review.com that have been generated by its contributors. The user specifically acknowledges that neither Gregory Kohs nor Wikipedia Review.com are liable for any defamatory, offensive, misleading or illegal content provided by other users, and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user.
That being said, Gregory Kohs and Wikipedia Review.com seek to fashion this site as a safe, pleasant environment for gentle people of ages 13 and older. The management reserves the right to delete the following sorts of content at any time: pornography, adult or mature content, illegal gambling or wagering, gratuitous violence, hate speech, fraudulent information, and business scams. These types of content are also restricted by Google AdSense, and because AdSense currently displays on many editors' content pages on Wikipedia Review, we cannot jeopardize AdSense account(s) with such prohibited content.
As for how "the management" works... I own the domain and pay for the server. If I'm ever in a quandary about a decision about pages "not to my liking", I am prone to consult -- privately, by e-mail -- with the site's top 3 or 4 contributors, for their input. Ultimately, the decision is mine... but (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) I don't believe I've ever acted in a way that was considered rash, out-of-process, or to the dismay of our most prolific contributors.
In that respect, I am light-years beyond Jimmy Wales and his method of managing Wikipedia disputes.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th April 2010, 6:07am)
As for how "the management" works... I own the domain and pay for the server. If I'm ever in a quandary about a decision about pages "not to my liking", I am prone to consult -- privately, by e-mail -- with the site's top 3 or 4 contributors, for their input. Ultimately, the decision is mine... but (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) I don't believe I've ever acted in a way that was considered rash, out-of-process, or to the dismay of our most prolific contributors.
In that respect, I am light-years beyond Jimmy Wales and his method of managing Wikipedia disputes.
Er, not really. You have yet another method that works on small scales, but isn't scalable, just as Jimbo did in 2002.
When you get 3 million pages, and you still have this system, let us know that's workin' for ya. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 15th April 2010, 11:47am)
Er, not really. You have yet another method that works on small scales, but isn't scalable, just as Jimbo did in 2002.
When you get 3 million pages, and you still have this system, let us know that's workin' for ya. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
It's working the same with 60,000+ pages as when we had <25,000 pages. Where is the magical range of page counts between 60,000 and 3,000,000 where this system fails?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th April 2010, 8:58am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 15th April 2010, 11:47am)
Er, not really. You have yet another method that works on small scales, but isn't scalable, just as Jimbo did in 2002.
When you get 3 million pages, and you still have this system, let us know that's workin' for ya. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
It's working the same with 60,000+ pages as when we had <25,000 pages. Where is the magical range of page counts between 60,000 and 3,000,000 where this system fails?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 15th April 2010, 12:08pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 15th April 2010, 7:56am)
I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.
Ok. I'll ask the obvious question.
Zoloft, who are you, and what other online monickers might we know you as?
I'm a middle-aged male writer and IT person, resident in California, married, gainfully employed, and I can still see my feet when I look down.
If I told you my WP monicker, it would be someone you've never heard of. I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles. Once in a while I revert unsourced additions to BLPs, but it's not a crusade of mine.
I frequent a few boards where people have gathered after they have been ousted from other online communities. I dunno why.
It's unclear whether in the long run my existence has any meaning, but I'm afraid we're all in that category, given enough elapsed time.
As I stated when I first came on board, I prefer anonymity online, 'cause people are crazy. I'm certain Tarantino could find out who I am in a dozen mouseclicks, but he'd be bored by the results.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 15th April 2010, 11:40am)
Notwithstanding the fact that I once wrote a similar song parody, this one was passed along to me by an otherwise anonymous Wikiversitan who says he is releasing it into the public domain...
Title: Hey Jim Composer: Paul McCartney et al
Hey Jim, don't get mad Take a bad page and make it better Remember to let trolls into your heart Then you can start to make Wikipedia better
....
Okay, now you've done it. Here's mine:
When I'll Be Ignored
When I get trolled and losing my cool Half an hour from now, Will you be supporting me with half the board-- Gardner, Snow, de Vreede, and the horde.
When I pull flags as "emer-gen-CIES" While everyone is bored; Will you dismiss me, or will you ass-kiss me? Or will I be ignored?
And if you say the word, I could... vote.. with you... =================
When I stomp projects I never helped with Pretending I'm involved, Will you tell me that I'm really wise, and stuff-- Or rudely tell me: you've had enough?
When I'm the troll, and trolling my own Not God, King, or Lord-- Will you still sass me, or will you kiss-ass me? Or will I be ignored?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 15th April 2010, 3:16pm)
I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles.
Man, if I had a dollar for every egomaniac admin or uber-editor on Wikipedia who's said that before, I'd have enough to register 20 anti-Wikipedia domain names.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th April 2010, 4:36pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 15th April 2010, 3:16pm)
I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles.
Man, if I had a dollar for every egomaniac admin or uber-editor on Wikipedia who's said that before, I'd have enough to register 20 anti-Wikipedia domain names.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 15th April 2010, 10:50pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th April 2010, 4:36pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 15th April 2010, 3:16pm)
I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles.
Man, if I had a dollar for every egomaniac admin or uber-editor on Wikipedia who's said that before, I'd have enough to register 20 anti-Wikipedia domain names.
As far as uncontroversial edits go, none of mine have been reverted to the best of my knowledge (I stop watching pages I edit after a week or so), so if there is a controversy, it's a real quiet one...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 15th April 2010, 6:52am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 11:41pm)
Is there a way to do something like "show all edits for the period X-Y"?
Yes, but it won't show traffic from the wholesale deletions of entire projects and userspace discussion pages. However, you can sometimes find relics pointing to those wholesale deletions. And sometimes a friendly admin will rescue deleted pages and send them to an aggrieved party for their personal off-wiki archives.
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 11:41pm)
I'm getting a bad feeling.
That's not surprising. Is it shpilkes in the geneckteckessoink?
Nah, just a bad feeling. I'll leave the shpilkes to my fiance, who is ... undescribable.
Now, don't sit on it, share the wealth! How do I show traffic from a period?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Thu 15th April 2010, 12:06am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th April 2010, 3:59pm)
The idea that WV is in deep doo-doo because of Jimbo, or "abusive administrators," is really the same view as Jimbo's idea that the problem is those "trolls."
So, your position is that someone who performed out-of-process page deletions, made bad blocks of people who violated no rules or policies, performed an emergency desysop action when no emergency existed and threatened to shut down Wikiversity in order to enforce his actions is the same as the honest Wikiversity participants who he called trolls? Pardon me if I don't agree.
Sometimes I feel like Gulliver in Lilliput. I should go wash, I've been swimming in the Wiki-river. I should talk to my shrink, maybe adjust my medication.
To say that a view is the same (which is obviously a form of analogy) is not to say that the persons are the same. However, both are serving the same delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.
So far, here, we have identified Jimbo Wales and JWSchmidt (who is certainly violating policies -- written or unwritten -- as far as I can see) as holding that view and serving that delusion, we could add countless people, it's a common one, all the way up to, say, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, G. W. Bush, and, in fact, most people. Am I saying that these people "are the same"? Only in a certain way. Now, student at the University, figure it out. Paper due next Thursday. Whether you agree with me or not isn't relevant, do your work well.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 16th April 2010, 1:19am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 16th April 2010, 3:13am)
What the hell is an unwritten policy?
Why it's a gentleman's agreement, sir, a quiet understanding that we won't allow... certain types in our club.
I wonder what the corresponding derivative practice would be for ejecting those certain types. Surely it's not some variety of unseemly Spammish Inquisition.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 15th April 2010, 7:49pm)
delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.
I've never made that dualistic distinction. I've spent years studying the defects of Wikimedia "structure" and how those defects result in "leaders" who abuse their positions of responsibility. When I see the abuses, I speak out. I've spent a huge amount of effort collaborating with others in an effort to build a sensible structure for Wikiversity only to see a swarm of barbarians arrive and perform a hostile takeover of Wikiversity. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of the barbarians is how to prevent Wikiversity participants from studying the defects of Wikimedia wiki projects.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
There was plenty of evidence to establish that Wikipedia governance suffered from a defective structure.
There was also overwhelming evidence to convict some of the most abusive admins of egregious abuse of power. Here is the example that most closely pertains to my own unhappy experience with IDCab.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 16th April 2010, 5:27am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 15th April 2010, 7:49pm)
delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.
I've never made that dualistic distinction. I've spent years studying the defects of Wikimedia "structure" and how those defects result in "leaders" who abuse their positions of responsibility. When I see the abuses, I speak out. I've spent a huge amount of effort collaborating with others in an effort to build a sensible structure for Wikiversity only to see a swarm of barbarians arrive and perform a hostile takeover of Wikiversity. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of the barbarians is how to prevent Wikiversity participants from studying the defects of Wikimedia wiki projects.
Since the bad people are in the world always, short of mass executions or imprisonments to deal with them, it's better to focus on institutional policies which prevent them from gaining authority.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 16th April 2010, 12:52pm)
Since the bad people are in the world always, short of mass executions or imprisonments to deal with them, it's better to focus on institutional policies which prevent them from gaining authority.
Is the warden correct? I'd say that, if the prisoners weren't "bad," the confinement under Attica conditions made them that way. Remember, by the way, that I was a prison chaplain, I practically lived with the prisoners for quite some time. During Ramadan, I didn't even go home to sleep. And, of course, I could leave any time, but I saw some of the abuse. I offered to report it, I was told by the inmate who was abused, a 15-to-lifer, "No, we'll make sure he's transferred, don't worry about it. Most of the guards and the warden don't want riots either."
"Institutional policies" are indeed the solution, but as normally construed, they are totally inadequate, because policies, to mean anything, must be enforced, and, then, by whom? Remember, bad structure will create bad people, so it is not enough to make sure that bad people are kept out of positions of power. The argument you've made, Milton, is one which requires positions of power, so please tell me precisely how to make sure that people in positions of power do not become bad people?
Underneath your assumptions, it seems, would be an idea of intrinsic badness. That exists, it must exist, to the extent that behavior is genetically determined, but if it is genetically determined, it isn't "badness," any more than a bear or natural predator is "bad." Dangerous, yes. Requiring protection, yes, if we assume that "human beings" are to be protected (and I operate on that assumption, myself). But genetic variation is not "bad."
We will never resolve the problems without addressing the structure, and the force that is needed to resolve the problems requires the organization of some structure or entity that can "watch the watchers," without that structure itself concentrating power other than the power to inform or possibly to advise. I am led inevitably to certain conclusions and proposals. But because the assumptions of badness are so deep and so broad, most people aren't interested, they assume, if they even get that far, that the bad people will corrupt this, too. But structure can be designed to make that corruption very, very difficult, so difficult that the "bad people" won't even try. After all, they can't gain power by corrupting this kind of structure. It's not an attractive target, even though the power to massively advise would seem like candy to them. They think they already have that power, through control of media, and, indeed, they do, at present.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 16th April 2010, 8:27am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 15th April 2010, 7:49pm)
delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.
I've never made that dualistic distinction. I've spent years studying the defects of Wikimedia "structure" and how those defects result in "leaders" who abuse their positions of responsibility. When I see the abuses, I speak out. I've spent a huge amount of effort collaborating with others in an effort to build a sensible structure for Wikiversity only to see a swarm of barbarians arrive and perform a hostile takeover of Wikiversity. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of the barbarians is how to prevent Wikiversity participants from studying the defects of Wikimedia wiki projects.
They can only do the following things:
1. They can intervene to delete pages on Wikiversity.
2. They can block editors from accessing Wikiversity.
None of this would prevent "Wikiversity participants" from study of anything. It would merely prevent them from doing so on-wiki. They can do so off-wiki, and, if necessary, they can do so under conditions that would protect them from on-wiki retaliation, should they think that necessary.
A neutral report on some incident or about some aspect of wiki operation could be published elsewhere, under the proper licensing, and it could be proposed for use in discussions on Wikiversity. If a cabal objects to this, they will almost certainly call attention to it. "It's the cover-up, stupid!"
For any of this to work, the report must be prepared, and it must be rigorously neutral, as well as being designed for pedagogical efficiency, which requires, in fact, considerations of political issues. It must avoid "making a point," while, at the same time, informing the readers sufficiently to allow them to make their own conclusions. This is the foundation, in fact, of what NPOV policy should mean on Wikipedia. IDCab and the like tend to believe that readers are stupid, so they must be led by the nose to the "right" conclusions, and thus evidence that might trick them into believing those "fringe" views must be excluded, since it would be "imbalanced," in the face of "scientific consensus."
What happened to Moulton was absolutely horrible, in my opinion, but it's actually happened to many. In order to participate in the first step, I must set aside my personal reaction -- and I have similar stories to tell of my own, readers here will know -- and it would probably be best if I abstain from being a "reporter" where I'm personally involved. For various reasons, it may not be possible for me to do so entirely, so I'll need to disclose any bias, the same as any researcher is now, increasingly, required to disclose possible bias.
I do not know, at this point, just how bad the situation is, because the reactions of WMF staff -- which includes Jimbo -- are humanly understandable without an assumption of bad faith. I've seen good people react this way, under mob conditions and other structural dysfunction, many times, over well over twenty years with on-line "conferencing," we used to call it on the W.E.L.L..
There are people here, and people that might still be accessible through on-wiki email, but retired out of frustration, who could bring to bear tremendous depth of experience and, often, understanding. To address the problems of the wikis, we must first understand them, from a level higher than that of our own personal frustrations, and we can and should gather the accumulated wisdom and experience of the entire, larger community, to the maximum extent possible. This is the path forward that I see, it is not a "caravan of despair."
Attempting to control the wikis (which includes, to some degree, "protecting" them against admin abuse) is way premature; when understanding is widespread, control will actually be trivial.
(But note that Wikipedia Review is sometimes, already, effective in exposing some abuse. It does so by raising consciousness of abusive actions, and it is most effective in doing this when the observations are presented without the wailing and gnashing of teeth that are our quite natural responses. It's also fun, and fun is important. One of the highlights of my wikicareer was when I called Raul654 an asshole here, and he was stupid enough to wail about it on-wiki, thus calling lots of attention to it, and probably, my guess, a lot of heads nodded, someone had finally managed to get this on-wiki, by Raul's own action! Notice his loss of checkuser under pressure, this was not unrelated. O, how the mighty -- or at least the gross -- have fallen! Notice the outpouring of support for Raul's confident proposal to shut down Wikiversity on meta. --Not!)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 16th April 2010, 11:32am)
A neutral report on some incident....
.....the report must be prepared
Wikimedia Studies is a task for those with much free time and a strong stomach. Most people find it far easier to simply not expect too much from Wikimedia....it provides a handy reference source for pop culture and some lovingly sorted images of genitalia for those who do not care to devote shelf space to anatomy texts. People who are motivated to look into the dark underside of Wikimedia find their motivation quickly fades with exposure to the sad realities ... desire soon grows to spend one's precious time in a healthier atmosphere.
Occasionally I imagine myself devoting serious effort to carefully exploring and documenting the history of Wikimedia. I imagine most of the truly shocking edits have been oversighted, but some gems do remain in the edit history. Those who took control of Wikimedia have publicly expressed some interesting ideas that should be cataloged and causally linked to the existing defects of Wikimedia wiki projects. Gangs of policy violating POV pushers do not roam Wikipedia by chance...their supporters among the ranks of Wikipedia functionaries can be exposed. In addition to the billion edits that need to be mined, there is a vast layer of less public communications such as secret IRC strategy sessions where the most corrupt practices of power-hungry Wikimedians are practiced and hidden from view. Of course, sometimes the digital veil slips, so some relevant data are available for the researcher.
In the end there is the issue of money. If enough light can be shed on the defects of Wikimedia then sources of grant funding will dry up and there could possibly be enough of a stimulus from a published history of Wikimedia to force some meaningful change and reform. More likely, honest people will simply be more efficiently warned to keep their distance and the dark side of Wikimedia will continue its program on the strength of new recruits who are looking for an organization where they can join the ranks as tolerated and sanctioned POV pushers or as aficionados of the banhammer MMORPG. Of course, those who control the Foundation are not interested in some areas of human knowledge, so there are some healthy domains within Wikimedia wiki projects which lend an appearance of good health to the operation. I find myself asking, is it worth spending time studying and documenting the weaknesses of Wikimedia and working to make repairs or is one's time better spent developing other online communities?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 15th April 2010, 10:57pm)
As far as uncontroversial edits go, none of mine have been reverted to the best of my knowledge (I stop watching pages I edit after a week or so), so if there is a controversy, it's a real quiet one...
Unless you do nothing other than spelling corrections, I find that difficult nigh impossible to believe. Hell even those tend to be reverted if somebody has doesn't like the edit before yours.
Sure, you could say an edit doesn't count as "reverted" if you can do it again and have it stick, but that's a slippery slope.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 16th April 2010, 3:13am)
What the hell is an unwritten policy?
I suppose it is a policy which if written would be too long for anyone to read, but still remain ambiguous or silent regarding most issues/situations for which it is consulted.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 17th April 2010, 2:42am)
Gangs of policy violating POV pushers do not roam Wikipedia by chance...their supporters among the ranks of Wikipedia functionaries can be exposed.
Case in point, consider the curious case of FeloniousMonk, the demonstrably corrupt Wikipedia admin who provided most of the leadership of IDCab. It took forever for ArbCom to conclude its case against FM. They unanimously found him guilty of corruption and gross violations of policy, including "meritless accusations against other editors on multiple occasions."
“Paul has been a senior volunteer at Wikipedia for a great many years now. His cheerfulness, intelligence, and diplomatic ways have been a great service to the project. Paul is great!†June 23, 2008
Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia worked directly with Paul at Wikimedia Foundation
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 17th April 2010, 8:50am)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 17th April 2010, 2:42am)
Gangs of policy violating POV pushers do not roam Wikipedia by chance...their supporters among the ranks of Wikipedia functionaries can be exposed.
Case in point, consider the curious case of FeloniousMonk, the demonstrably corrupt Wikipedia admin who provided most of the leadership of IDCab. It took forever for ArbCom to conclude its case against FM. They unanimously found him guilty of corruption and gross violations of policy, including "meritless accusations against other editors on multiple occasions."
“Paul has been a senior volunteer at Wikipedia for a great many years now. His cheerfulness, intelligence, and diplomatic ways have been a great service to the project. Paul is great!†June 23, 2008
Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia worked directly with Paul at Wikimedia Foundation
You couldn't have made it more clear, Moulton.
I seriously, seriously, would like to find someone who was friends with Jimmy Wales in 2000, who is still friends with him today.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 17th April 2010, 8:30am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 17th April 2010, 10:22am)
I seriously, seriously, would like to find someone who was friends with Jimmy Wales in 2000, who is still friends with him today.
When did Cary Bass start working with Wales?
I was going to ask if he had a dog, but same difference.
2005, I think. The only people who knew Wales in 2000 that I can think of are Michael Davis and Tim Shell. As far as I know, neither of them has a lot to do with Jimmy anymore, and the relationship between Davis and Wales is, at best, strained. I haven't heard much of anything about Tim Shell since about 2007.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 17th April 2010, 4:49pm)
The only people who knew Wales in 2000 that I can think of are Michael Davis and Tim Shell.
In terms of Bomis/Wikipedia folk: Larry Sanger (obvious), Michael Hardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Hardy), Terry Foote ("invested" in Veropedia apparently after having a falling out with Wales).
What about Danny Wool? Brad Patrick?
I'm sure Paul Vixie at least knew Wales in 2000. Don't know if they were friends.
And then there's a whole boatload of less "notable" people who I'd rather not discuss on a public forum like this. Some of whom are still in friendly contact with Wales. But as far as I know they've never been involved with anything Bomis or Wikipedia or Wikia related, so I'd say they're not fair game to discuss here.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 17th April 2010, 2:42am)
Wikimedia Studies is a task for those with much free time and a strong stomach. Most people find it far easier to simply not expect too much from Wikimedia....it provides a handy reference source for pop culture and some lovingly sorted images of genitalia for those who do not care to devote shelf space to anatomy texts.
"Lovingly sordid?" AGF, JW. Oh! "Sorted." Never mind.
QUOTE
People who are motivated to look into the dark underside of Wikimedia find their motivation quickly fades with exposure to the sad realities ... desire soon grows to spend one's precious time in a healthier atmosphere.
Indeed. This is why, for some, being blocked can bring with it a tremendous sigh of relief. But there are other considerations. Something which bills itself as the "sum of all human knowledge" has taken on certain responsibilities. I'm not going there, but I could understand if some are motivated to Direct action. It's a serious business. Wikipedia is not, unfortunately, "just a wiki." What Wikiversity is, and is not, isn't entirely clear to me. But I like the possibilities, for sure, I'm dipping my toe, and more, into that water.
QUOTE
Occasionally I imagine myself devoting serious effort to carefully exploring and documenting the history of Wikimedia. I imagine most of the truly shocking edits have been oversighted, but some gems do remain in the edit history. Those who took control of Wikimedia have publicly expressed some interesting ideas that should be cataloged and causally linked to the existing defects of Wikimedia wiki projects. Gangs of policy violating POV pushers do not roam Wikipedia by chance...their supporters among the ranks of Wikipedia functionaries can be exposed. In addition to the billion edits that need to be mined, there is a vast layer of less public communications such as secret IRC strategy sessions where the most corrupt practices of power-hungry Wikimedians are practiced and hidden from view. Of course, sometimes the digital veil slips, so some relevant data are available for the researcher.
Sure. There is also an interesting consequence of oversight, to the extent that it has taken place. It can leave behind no evidence that a banned editor did anything wrong, with the only defense, then, being, "trust us." Given that some of the oversighted material exists in other copies of the database, which any serious community organization would keep, this claim itself, if shown to be a cover-up, can impeach the management, showing that it cannot be trusted. But we jump ahead, as far as I'm concerned. While I have suspicions here and there, I have no proof of serious malfeasance, and maybe that's a good thing. It allows me to be a little more neutral. I've suffered from abusive administrators, but have never transferred my opinion about this to the whole administrative corps, or to WMF staff, including Jimbo (again, beyond some kind of suspicion, which I've previously explained). I'm really interested, myself, to see what neutral investigation will uncover. So I'm willing to do some of it. But without any support from others, it won't be useful and I can't personally justify, then, the time. I.e., I'm willing to participate, but not to control and be the whole show. I wrote with regard to the current WV response testing study proposal that I was waiting for another editor. I could decide to go ahead with Privatemusings, but it's risky (to Pm!).
QUOTE
In the end there is the issue of money. If enough light can be shed on the defects of Wikimedia then sources of grant funding will dry up and there could possibly be enough of a stimulus from a published history of Wikimedia to force some meaningful change and reform.
The problem is that any report compiled with a view toward impeaching WMF is likely to be ineffective, they and their supporters will circle the wagons. And, JW, you are effectively justifying the actions recently taken by Jimbo, by revealing that this might possibly be a motive of yours.
QUOTE
More likely, honest people will simply be more efficiently warned to keep their distance and the dark side of Wikimedia will continue its program on the strength of new recruits who are looking for an organization where they can join the ranks as tolerated and sanctioned POV pushers or as aficionados of the banhammer MMORPG. Of course, those who control the Foundation are not interested in some areas of human knowledge, so there are some healthy domains within Wikimedia wiki projects which lend an appearance of good health to the operation. I find myself asking, is it worth spending time studying and documenting the weaknesses of Wikimedia and working to make repairs or is one's time better spent developing other online communities?
Up to you, of course.
Look, "participating in a project" does not require devoting all one's time to it! I could, in fact, just occasionally reading project material and discussions. It could even be more distant than that, and I'll introduce, if we get going, devices and concepts showing how this is possible. You could simply make yourself available by email and not even watch WV at all. Your experience is valuable, I'm already interested in consulting you. What happened to your admin bit on WV? Was there any discussion of the removal anywhere? Isn't a removal with no discussion at all a tad odd? Sure, bureaucrats can and should lift a bit without prior discussion in an emergency, but .... I've seen truly egregious cases where, still, there was at least an announcement and an "explanation" along the the lines of "This was really bad, but for privacy concerns, we can't say why we are doing this." And when the admin then doesn't make a fuss, like here or elsewhere, we can know that, at least, in this case, it's probably right. Unless they literally took the guy out back and shot him. Any reports of that, yet?
Let's remember to have some perspective here. There are places where, if you challenge authority, or even look like you are, you end up imprisoned or dead, quickly. Sometimes they also take out your entire family.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 17th April 2010, 2:39pm)
Let's remember to have some perspective here. There are places where, if you challenge authority, or even look like you are, you end up imprisoned or dead, quickly. Sometimes they also take out your entire family.
You may be setting the bar a little low for a website.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 17th April 2010, 12:39pm)
Look, "participating in a project" does not require devoting all one's time to it!
One proposal to help discourage WP's crazier admins was that anyone editing from a single IP address would be limited to perhaps 3-4 hours per day. But since WP is controlled by the worst of the crazies, some of whomedit in 72-hour psychotic marathons, this proposal will never happen.
QUOTE
And when the admin then doesn't make a fuss, like here or elsewhere, we can know that, at least, in this case, it's probably right. Unless they literally took the guy out back and shot him. Any reports of that, yet?
Goes to show you how unimportant Wikipedia is to the real world. So far as I can tell, thousands of people have been defamed on it for years, yet I know of no examples of a Mafiosi or criminal figure ordering the execution of a WP "personality".
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 17th April 2010, 4:30pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 17th April 2010, 2:39pm)
Let's remember to have some perspective here. There are places where, if you challenge authority, or even look like you are, you end up imprisoned or dead, quickly. Sometimes they also take out your entire family.
You may be setting the bar a little low for a website.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 17th April 2010, 3:39pm)
What Wikiversity is, and is not, isn't entirely clear to me.
Any pretense to being an authentic learning community was dispelled two summers ago, when IDCab, Bastique, and Jimbo swept into Wikiversity and crippled it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 17th April 2010, 12:39pm)
you are effectively justifying the actions recently taken by Jimbo
Right...let's make a list of all the justifications for repeatedly deleting a harmless Wikiversity learning project and threatening the closure of Wikiversity in order to make it stick. Let's make a list of all the justifications for blocking honest Wikiversity participants from editing, blocking with no warning and with the reason given an uncivil accusation of "troll!". Let's make a list of all the justifications for performing an emergency desysop when no emergency existed. Sorry, but there is no justification for these abuses of power. There are rationalizations, but no justice.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 17th April 2010, 8:54pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 17th April 2010, 9:49pm)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 17th April 2010, 8:36pm)
Let's make a list of all the justifications for performing an emergency desysop when no emergency existed.
You still don't understand. An emergency did exist; you just don't understand, or don't agree with, what constitutes an "emergency" in Jimboland.
Exactamundo —
Pretty much the same sort of thing that constituted an emergency in Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th April 2010, 3:07pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 15th April 2010, 7:56am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th April 2010, 8:18pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Wed 14th April 2010, 2:15pm)
I don't know how things are run at Wikipedia Review - is there a community process there, or are you the God-King of your own domain?
If a directory or user page isn't to your liking, do you delete it yourself, or are there a team of sysops?
I'm sorry... who are you, again?
I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.
"Same question" refers to "Who is Zoloft?" or "Greg, how do you keep that awesome Wikipedia Review site running so smoothly, without all the drama and dysfunction of the Wikipedia mess?"
Neither Gregory Kohs nor Wikipedia Review.com are responsible for the contents of any of the pages on Wikipedia Review.com that have been generated by its contributors. The user specifically acknowledges that neither Gregory Kohs nor Wikipedia Review.com are liable for any defamatory, offensive, misleading or illegal content provided by other users, and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user.
That being said, Gregory Kohs and Wikipedia Review.com seek to fashion this site as a safe, pleasant environment for gentle people of ages 13 and older. The management reserves the right to delete the following sorts of content at any time: pornography, adult or mature content, illegal gambling or wagering, gratuitous violence, hate speech, fraudulent information, and business scams. These types of content are also restricted by Google AdSense, and because AdSense currently displays on many editors' content pages on Wikipedia Review, we cannot jeopardize AdSense account(s) with such prohibited content.
As for how "the management" works... I own the domain and pay for the server. If I'm ever in a quandary about a decision about pages "not to my liking", I am prone to consult -- privately, by e-mail -- with the site's top 3 or 4 contributors, for their input. Ultimately, the decision is mine... but (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) I don't believe I've ever acted in a way that was considered rash, out-of-process, or to the dismay of our most prolific contributors.
In that respect, I am light-years beyond Jimmy Wales and his method of managing Wikipedia disputes.
I was talking about the latter question, thanks for anwering it.
You see, I have seen several wikipedia-like projects being started in WR (just don't ask me the names, I don't remember them), and all have failed to take off except for yours. I think, but I don't have numbers, that they had a very small number of active participants. What is the difference with your project? Could it be the governance model? The domain owners of the other projects didn't delegate enough in other people, and people didn't feel ownership for the project? Could it be simply that youspend more hours working in your project, and that those projects would have taken off if only the owner had been more active? Should the owners have changed their strategies to attract participants?
I mean, if you make clear that you are the ultimate decider of the project, then people might decide not to work in your project because they know that you can decide to delete it all in a whim. You have made it clear that this won't happen, and this is the key of your success in attracting people?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Mon 19th April 2010, 8:59am)
I was talking about the latter question, thanks for anwering it.
You see, I have seen several wikipedia-like projects being started in WR (just don't ask me the names, I don't remember them), and all have failed to take off except for yours. I think, but I don't have numbers, that they had a very small number of active participants. What is the difference with your project? Could it be the governance model? The domain owners of the other projects didn't delegate enough in other people, and people didn't feel ownership for the project? Could it be simply that youspend more hours working in your project, and that those projects would have taken off if only the owner had been more active? Should the owners have changed their strategies to attract participants?
I mean, if you make clear that you are the ultimate decider of the project, then people might decide not to work in your project because they know that you can decide to delete it all in a whim. You have made it clear that this won't happen, and this is the key of your success in attracting people?
You're welcome, Enric.
I don't know if I'd characterize Wikipedia Review as "taking off", but if you want the secret to the increased page views, better search results, and more pages being created... I think you'll be rather disappointed by the answer.
The secret is...
Garbage pages stocked with RSS news feeds (example). Google seems to approve, since these are the sorts of pages that many thousands of Internet users are searching for.
These crappy pages help pay the server bills, thanks to contextual advertising. Keeping the server running and keeping Google in a frequent state of "must crawl Wikipedia Review again" provides the necessary value-add to our more serious contributors (like Jon Awbrey and Bob Nicholson), who are decidedly working on non-crappy pages.
An interesting case study is that of Fred Bauder's Wikinfo.org. For most of 2009, his site had equal or better reach than Wikipedia Review.com did. However, since December 2009, MWB has been cleaning his clock. You would never see a garbage RSS page on his site, I suppose.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 29th June 2010, 1:09pm)
It's now the Ottava and Adb show.
Abd, at your service.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 1st July 2010, 10:06am)
Adambro is still in charge, and there's no way to appeal my block, because I've not been allowed access to edit my Talk page, nor to e-mail Adambro.
It's a wiki, and it can change from minute to minute, but Thekohser is now allowed Talk page access, and Adambro seems to be suggesting a discussion on the Colloquium.
One thing at a time. Thekohser, you have your user page back there, though you still can't edit it. You now have Talk page access. Take it slowly, and stop poking Adambro, you may cause him to, indeed, imagine that he's in charge. He's not. He's just another servant, albeit one with some discretion, like the rest of us, and, like the rest of us, when we have discretion, we can be tempted to misuse or overuse it. Admins are human beings too.
If you have succeeded in alienating enough of the WV community, the unblock won't happen. But if you don't go out of your way to make more enemies, or to intensify the problems that already exist, it can be done, I predict. The active WV community is now very small, due to you-know-what. But it's growing back, little by little.
I've made some suggestions by email. I respect your dignity and demand nothing.
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Thu 1st July 2010, 3:16pm)
Start an account there and e-mail him from that account.
While you could, it's not a good idea. If someone tries to cut off your direct email access to them, don't email them! Pushing it will just irritate them and intensify the problem. However, Greg, you can email me, you can PM me here, I think, whatever. You can contact other Wikiversity users directly. I recommend, however, proceeding slowly, as an eventualist. Adambro is not the issue.
This whole "cross-wiki" thing is pernicious. For dealing with vandals, fine. But nobody is claiming that you are a vandal. Rather, some don't want criticism, of themselves, or of the projects. That's unfortunate, because criticism is *essential*. Especially unfortunate is the all-too-common problem that the most cogent criticism can make people the most uncomfortable.
To be successful, long-term, critics need to understand this and conquer their own stick-it-to-them impulses. Even though I really understand those impulses!
I don't talk to Adambro nor do I respect him or ever have. I don't know why he was made an admin to begin with, but someone that wasn't me decided to push him through.
Cough.
Regardless, I don't like the idea of thekohser2 or whatever its called. If he wants his original talk page opened, that is one thing. If I had time tonight I would go ahead and straighten it all out, but I don't have time to do it until, say, 6 hours from now. Abd, if you want to reblock off the one account, tag the user page with a redirect or statement that it is a sock of Thekohser, then unblock his talk page, that would do quite a bit to work out the whole thing.
I've been also meaning to put forth a policy to make it clear that we do not block off users from user pages even if blocked/banned unless they are socks (thus, giving them only -one- user page to work off of). It would also put forth the right to archive/remove content from user talk pages, and remove any ability to block someone based on hostility at the user talk page as long as the page contains one of those tags that hides it from search engines. In essence, people should have latitude on their own talk page as long as it doesn't affect any other page or shows up in google.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 1st July 2010, 5:37pm)
I don't talk to Adambro nor do I respect him or ever have. I don't know why he was made an admin to begin with, but someone that wasn't me decided to push him through.
Aw, Ottava, now, be nice. If Adambro wants to help keep Wikiversity clean, he can have the broom or mop, whatever. To my mind, it's up to the community to restrain admins who cross boundaries, and whatever Adambro does that is really a problem can be undone. He wheel-warred today, over this silly talk page deletion, but so? BFD. All this did was to call attention to the problems, even more.
QUOTE
Cough.
Yeah.
QUOTE
Regardless, I don't like the idea of thekohser2 or whatever its called. If he wants his original talk page opened, that is one thing. If I had time tonight I would go ahead and straighten it all out, but I don't have time to do it until, say, 6 hours from now. Abd, if you want to reblock off the one account, tag the user page with a redirect or statement that it is a sock of Thekohser, then unblock his talk page, that would do quite a bit to work out the whole thing.
Well, first thing I did was to undelete the user talk page for Thekohser-2. I was planning on allowing talk page access for that account, since he'd just edited with it. But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and the fact is that his return to the original account is much cleaner. If that account's blocked, so would any other account, like it or not. If it's not, it should be used unless he requests a user name change. He just registered the new account to make the request, in effect, or, more accurately, to prepare for it. He really made the request here. A rose by any other name will smell -- or stink -- the same.
So when Adambro redeleted the talk page (naughty, naughty!), which I saw when I prepared to post an explanation there -- and I also had an edit window open for Adambro's Talk, same time -- I reset the block settings for Thekohser to allow him Talk page access. And Adambro seems to have accepted that. He may object to unblocking Thekohser, but my sense is that if Thekohser doesn't try to rub his nose in the poop, it won't amount to much, and he might not even object, in the end. And, in the end, it is not up to him.
It really depends on how Thekohser handles the charges that will probably be tossed up. Unfortunately, if you are a critic, you will not be judged by the same standards as everyone else. So to speak, you will not be allowed to have smelly poop, to continue that metaphor. Life. The breaks. And the special burden of critics. If Thekohser can *take* criticism as we should receive it, and respond positively instead of defensively or aggressively, assuring the community that he won't be disruptive -- which includes unnecessarily drawing down the wrath of the wikigods when a crucial issue isn't involved (and that's up to the community, not him) -- I see unblock as being easy.
Others, some from "outside," may try to turn this into a Big Deal. I suggest we all resist that. What I don't see, if we proceed soberly, is further intervention from On High. And ultimately, I'm hoping we can create a clear operating relationship with the WikiMedia Foundation that will prevent further problems. WMF has certain rights as long as they provide the servers and maintenance and connectivity. If we don't like that, well, there are already others who have done the Right Thing, started "their own damned wiki." In the end, this is not only right, it is Good. Diversity is how modern communities deal with oligarchical corruption.
QUOTE
I've been also meaning to put forth a policy to make it clear that we do not block off users from user pages even if blocked/banned unless they are socks (thus, giving them only -one- user page to work off of). It would also put forth the right to archive/remove content from user talk pages, and remove any ability to block someone based on hostility at the user talk page as long as the page contains one of those tags that hides it from search engines. In essence, people should have latitude on their own talk page as long as it doesn't affect any other page or shows up in google.
I agree. However, it's a wiki. Remember wiki Rule Number One. There is no way to get around it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 1st July 2010, 5:37pm)
I don't talk to Adambro nor do I respect him or ever have. I don't know why he was made an admin to begin with, but someone that wasn't me decided to push him through.
It's a bit of a mystery to me, too.
But I have some evidence (from IRC) that Cary Bass recruited him to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts regarding his (Jimbo's) interventions against those who were promoting a review of ethical issues in WMF-sponsored projects.
The problem of questionable ethics is indeed a cross-wiki issue, and a sensitive one at that. You will recall that the original investigation into the ethical lapses at WP involved JWSchmidt, SB_Johnny, WAS 4.250, PrivateMusings, TheFieryAngel, Greg Kohs, and myself. How many of the individuals in that short list were blocked, either directly by Jimbo, or at his behest by one of his loyal sycophants?
I'm aware that many here have predicted this would happen. Apparently it did happen, May 30, and I certainly didn't notice. I'm, sort of, bailing out. Backing up. Someone tell me when it's over, I think I've done my bit for today....
Sorry, Greg, but this will have to escalate to Higher Powers before anything can be done. Mike.lifeguard is either a rogue steward or is running under authority of the WMF. If it's just cover for Jimbo, I predict fireworks. Or not. You never know. After all....
you can take away our academic freedom, but don't touch our porn.
No, we have it. Or, at least, if we don't, it's not their fault! But ... the point is missed, Jon. The sleepers don't care about academic freedom, unless it is their freedom being yanked, personally, but they sure care about porn. However, there is a connection, we'll see how this plays out.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:31am)
Ah, yes...
We'll be watching this page for that magical "Newer edit" to appear.
Then we'll start our stopwatches for the "When will Mike.lifeguard block Abd over this" betting pool.
I like how Abd even seems genuinely surprised by all this. That's the moment I live for. To surprise the seemingly well-versed.
I was, indeed, surprised. I've dealt with Mike.lifeguard before, it's not that it is, shall we say, utterly out of character. But what really went beyond the pale was a steward dealing with a little local block-evading sock. Completely ignoring and apparently not caring that local admins were addressing it. There was no emergency.
Look, Greg, you may have done me a service. Sure, you are a troll. Just like I was a troll when I edited Cold fusion when WMC was insisting that, in spite of his claims being before ArbComm, I was topic banned and he could prove it. I wasn't certain he would block me, but I knew it was possible. And thus I did the community a service by demonstrating to it just how far WMC would go.
Did you know that you'd been globally locked again? Whether or not, your registration and editing was the bait that revealed the jackboots. I just came from the AERO conference in Albany, New York, from connecting with IDEA, see this video. I'm poised to connect a group that represents a significant chunk of education in the U.S., the best part, with Wikiversity. Maybe the timing is just right to prevent me from getting egg all over my face, from spending my reputation and connectivity capital on a huge mistake. Wikiversity is not the only show in town. In fact, it's a minor one.
I'm coming to see a basic error of Wikipedia: one article per topic. One doorway into many resources, maybe, but only if genuine consensus is involved, and alternatives are easy and built in. "Free education" can be an oxymoron, there is always a price, and sometimes the price is your freedom.
At the AERO Conference, I heard John Gatto for the first time. After that, seeing what I saw today, I've been thinking ... powdered aluminum and iron oxide.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Actually, I reckon Abd is more than a little apprehensive about shady operatives like Mike.lifeguard and Adambro carrying out the back-channel directives of Cary, Jimbo, et al. What's surprising is that these troublesome characters are still doing Jimbo's dirty work after all that happened in the wake of the recent interventions at WV and Commons.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:14am)
Actually, I reckon Abd is more than a little apprehensive about shady operatives like Mike.lifeguard and Adambro carrying out the back-channel directives of Cary, Jimbo, et al. What's surprising is that these troublesome characters are still doing Jimbo's dirty work after all that happened in the wake of the recent interventions at WV and Commons.
I wouldn't lump Adambro in with this. But we'll see.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:06am)
I'm coming to see a basic error of Wikipedia: one article per topic.
It's a fatal flaw, since it sets up an impossible criterion -- namely that every article represent the singular "house view" of any given subject. That's just not realistic.
Google Knol avoids this problem by permitting different authors (or groups of collaborating authors) to publish signed articles, with as many different perspectives as there are schools of thought on a given subject. That concords with conventional academic practice.
Wikiversity was originally set up to allow multiple schools of thought on any given subject, but that model was subverted when IDCab came galumphing in and undertook to eradicate the school of thought that SB_Johnny, Hillgentleman, JWSchmidt, WAS 4.250, Greg Kohs, PrivateMusings, TheFieryAngel, and I were jointly putting forward on the subject of Managerial Ethics.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:16am)
I wouldn't lump Adambro in with this. But we'll see. Yes, it's surprising, considering. Rogue operation?
The evidence is that he's an unscholarly operative who is there to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts. Not so much a rogue operation as embedded corruption directed from the murky back-channels of WMF (via Jimbo and Cary).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:47am)
But I have some evidence (from IRC) that Cary Bass recruited him to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts regarding his (Jimbo's) interventions against those who were promoting a review of ethical issues in WMF-sponsored projects.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:58am)
The evidence is that he's an unscholarly operative who is there to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts. Not so much a rogue operation as embedded corruption directed from the murky back-channels of WMF (via Jimbo and Cary).
I hope you won't leave everyone waiting too long before you get around to posting your "evidence".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 4:16am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:58am)
Like I said, once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Ever. And if it's a corrupt bureaucracy, the mistakes will earn compound interest.
Would you care to expand that? Do you mean mistakes cannot be undone? That 'mistake' is an example of the best they can do? Can a new leadership/bureaucracy correct the damage?
I first stated that notion (which came to be known as Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia) over twenty years ago, so it's not a comment about any particular bureaucracy of note.
It's an empirical observation that I have found to be true with exceedingly rare exceptions.
In a true, pure bureaucracy (i.e. one governed entirely by bureaucratic rules which are followed to the letter), it's tantamount to a theorem. The reason for this is because rule-driven systems are too weak to support the level of scientifically grounded model-based reasoning and diagnostic reasoning required to support the higher level of functionality needed for a graceful self-correcting, self-regulated system.
There is an inherent (theoretical) limit to what any rule-based system can do. Some recurring mistakes can be fixed, going forward, by changing the rules (so as to avoid repeating the same disgraceful or idiotic mistake again and again), but there is generally no practical way of fixing all such past mistakes retroactively.
But more importantly, there is a special class of mistake that no rule-driven system can avoid or repair without an apocalyptic paradigm shift that fundamentally discards the rule-based architecture and supplants it with a modern function-based architecture. Moreover it is fairly easy to crash a rule-based system, by presenting it with a novel situation that the rules don't cover. Here, on W-R, Greg Kohs takes delight in doing that routinely with his favorite sparring partner in the game of Crash the System.
New leadership can fix the fundamental problem by evolving from an anachronistic rule-based bureaucracy to an ethical function-based architecture. But doing so will make virtually all of the embedded bureaucrats obsolescent (although some of them can presumably learn how to operate in a modern function-based systems paradigm).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:14am)
Actually, I reckon Abd is more than a little apprehensive about shady operatives like Mike.lifeguard and Adambro carrying out the back-channel directives of Cary, Jimbo, et al.
I wouldn't assume that they're acting on covert orders. Wikicultists often take actions on their own initiative to enforce what they believe to be the will of the Holy Jimbo, without actually being told to do so; I imagine that's what's going on here with both Mike.lifeguard and Adambro.
Part of the invidiousness of cults is that individual members, having taken personal ownership of the leader projected mindset, will continue to act in the leader's interest, even to their own detriment, with the full and unquestioned belief that their actions are for the benefit of The Cause, and without active direction from the leader. I fully expect that that is what has happened here.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 4:48am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:47am)
But I have some evidence (from IRC) that Cary Bass recruited him to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts regarding his (Jimbo's) interventions against those who were promoting a review of ethical issues in WMF-sponsored projects.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:58am)
The evidence is that he's an unscholarly operative who is there to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts. Not so much a rogue operation as embedded corruption directed from the murky back-channels of WMF (via Jimbo and Cary).
I hope you won't leave everyone waiting too long before you get around to posting your "evidence".
First, here is my evidence of the source of Adambro's power...
QUOTE(#wikiversity-en - Mar 30)
(04:13:08 PM) ChanServ: (notice) wimt forced flags change +F on Bastique. (04:14:28 PM) Juandev: ChanServ: cool, you can speak (04:24:08 PM) darkcode: looks like someone changed who the founder of this channel is (04:24:53 PM) darkcode: or added someone as founder (04:25:10 PM) darkcode: Bastique appears to be Cary Bass (04:33:02 PM) juliancolton: he is (04:36:10 PM) Juandev: yep (04:48:20 PM) ChanServ: (notice) [---c[]------ (Bastique) set flags +votiA on Adambro.
Then, a couple of days later...
QUOTE(#wikiversity-en April 1)
(10:29:24 AM) adambro: Moulton: I'm not sure why I'm bothering here. (10:29:54 AM) Moulton: I think you are bothering because, at ground level, you wish to learn to be a good scholar. (10:30:54 AM) adambro: Moulton: no, I'm bothering because I foolishly can't resist the temptation of responding (10:30:59 AM) Moulton: I dunno if you have ever taken a college course in Epistemology, but that's what we are doing here. (10:32:25 AM) Moulton: And I don't think Epistemology is "beyond the scope" of WV. (10:33:19 AM) adambro: i'm more concerned about the fact that you've been banned from all WMF projects it would seem. I'm not sure that makes you facilitating anything on WV particularly likely. (10:33:37 AM) Moulton: Do you know who site-banned me? (10:34:18 AM) adambro: oh it wasn't that crazy kid Jimbo was it? always up to mischief (10:34:34 AM) Moulton: It was. Do you know why he site-banned me? (10:34:53 AM) adambro: because you cause trouble wherever you go? (10:35:23 AM) Moulton: Would you like to know what motivated him? (10:35:49 AM) adambro: yes, but you're not going to tell me are you? you're going to tell me your opinion as to what motivated him. (10:37:21 AM) Moulton: No, I'm going to let you read Jimbo's own words on why he site-banned me. Here is the link to his own words: http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/Media...lConundrum.html (10:37:42 AM) Moulton: At the bottom, you will find his threat to site-ban me. (10:38:37 AM) adambro: standby (10:41:42 AM) adambro: lol (10:42:59 AM) Moulton: So that, as far as I know, is why he site-banned me. (10:43:59 AM) adambro: you got legal advice regarding talking to Jimbo? (10:44:56 AM) Moulton: Not legal advice. I was just chatting with Alison at the time Jimbo contacted me, and asked her to help me craft a tactful response. (10:45:35 AM) adambro: so you ignored his request to speak privately and then wondered why he was annoyed about that? (10:45:36 AM) Moulton: Somewhere, during the night, Alison sent Jimbo a message about our discussions. (10:46:33 AM) Moulton: Yes, I ignored it, as inappropriate, and made him a counter-offer. Alisoin concurred that I had not consented to his request. Jimbo simply assumed I would grant his request. (10:47:14 AM) Moulton: It is customary for bullies to insist that those they are bullying not tell anyone. (10:47:18 AM) adambro: you didn't "make a counter-offer", you offered alternative ways to communicate. you didn't say, no, I don't wish to communicate privately (10:49:04 AM) Moulton: I simply ignored his request, remained silent about it, as it was not an appropriate thing to request. (10:49:31 AM) Moulton: Do you object to someone remaining silent or ignoring a request? (10:49:45 AM) adambro: It doesn't seem too unreasonable that he'd be upset that you shared what was being discussed despite him requesting private discussions and you not saying you didn't agree to his request (10:50:04 AM) Moulton: Oh, there was no question that he was upset. Does that justify a site-ban? (10:50:44 AM) adambro: I didn't say it did. Clearly that one page doesn't document your entire time on WMF projects and what may or may not have influenced Jimbo (10:51:22 AM) Moulton: Note that he was site-banning me over content I had posted on my personal blog. And that content was just a silly song parody. (10:52:02 AM) Moulton: Why would a request to take down a silly song parody on a personal blog need to be a private request? (10:52:27 AM) Moulton: Especially a song parody that just lampooned something posted publicly on WP? (10:53:03 AM) Moulton: Isn't that a rather lame cause of action for a site-ban? (10:53:56 AM) Moulton: By the way, do you know what latter happened with FeloniousMonk on WP? (10:54:02 AM) adambro: I'm not interested in getting into this (10:54:18 AM) Moulton: OK. You have the right to remain ignorant. I respect that right. (10:54:23 AM) adambro: you can spend all the time you like debating this on WR with people that (10:54:43 AM) adambro: Moulton: If I wanted to know the details I'd look at the contibs, not simply listen to your comments (10:55:13 AM) Moulton: Like I said, you have the god-given right to remain ignorant. And I respect that right. (10:55:48 AM) adambro: Moulton: you don't appreciate that your comments mean little when I don't understand the context of what went on? (10:56:29 AM) Moulton: I have no choice but to accept the fact that you don't understand what went on. (10:57:03 AM) adambro: No, I don't, because I wasn't around properly and haven't looked through all the contribs (10:57:27 AM) Moulton: Your desire to understand or not understand what went on is your personal preference, over which I have no influence or control. (10:58:30 AM) adambro: I'd love to understand all the details here, I just don't have the time or motivation to do so. as far as I can tell, you being banned was a positive step in my view (10:59:27 AM) Moulton: If, at some future date, you wish to satisfy your love of understanding more of the details, I will be more than happy to assist your researches. (11:00:06 AM) adambro: Moulton: for which I'm grateful, if I ever do take the time to look through everything I am sure i'd appreciate your comments on what I read (11:00:42 AM) Moulton: I would hope you would find them helpful, instructive, and enlightening. But the timetable is yours to set. (11:01:58 AM) adambro: meanwhile, the main point to consider is whether or not you lurking in this channel is helping discussions or being a distraction (11:02:37 AM) Moulton: Take your time considering that. Feel free to share your considered thoughts on the issue. (11:03:53 AM) adambro: I think I've come to a conclusion already (11:04:37 AM) Moulton: Peace be with you, Adambro. (11:10:10 AM) mode (+o adambro) by ChanServ (11:10:24 AM) mode (+b *!*@pool-68-160-161-179.bos.east.verizon.net) by adambro (11:10:26 AM) You have been kicked by adambro: (Moulton)
So that's my evidence, from IRC, that Adambro is an unscholarly operative recruited and empowered by Cary to mindlessly enforce Jimbo's edicts.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:56am)
Kelly, does the above concord with your thesis?
Yup, absolutely consistent. He was enabled by Cary, sure, but the decision to act was his own, or at least he believes it was. He was then, and presumably is today, convinced that excluding you is necessary for the Preservation of the Encyclopedia Project, which is, of course, the most important thing that mankind has ever attempted.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:06am)
I just came from the AERO conference in Albany, New York, from connecting with IDEA, see this video. I'm poised to connect a group that represents a significant chunk of education in the U.S., the best part...
I really like the idea of democratic education. However, the biggest drawback of the democratic school closest to my neighborhood is this:
QUOTE
Full Time Enrollment: High School Annual Family Enrollment Fee $ 750* per year High School Tuition
$ 13,020 per year
Lower/ Middle School Enrollment: Annual Family Enrollment Fee $ 750* per year Tuition
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 9:16am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:56am)
Kelly, does the above concord with your thesis?
Yup, absolutely consistent. He was enabled by Cary, sure, but the decision to act was his own, or at least he believes it was. He was then, and presumably is today, convinced that excluding you is necessary for the Preservation of the Encyclopedia Project, which is, of course, the most important thing that mankind has ever attempted.
Since Adam is here, perhaps he will explain how it came to be that Cary empowered him at Wikiversity (and on #wikiversity-en).
It's clear from the above transcript that somebody briefed Adam in advance regarding Jimbo's first intervention in Wikiversity, some two years ago.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:56pm)
First, here is my evidence of the source of Adambro's power...
QUOTE(#wikiversity-en - Mar 30)
(04:13:08 PM) ChanServ: (notice) wimt forced flags change +F on Bastique. (04:14:28 PM) Juandev: ChanServ: cool, you can speak (04:24:08 PM) darkcode: looks like someone changed who the founder of this channel is (04:24:53 PM) darkcode: or added someone as founder (04:25:10 PM) darkcode: Bastique appears to be Cary Bass (04:33:02 PM) juliancolton: he is (04:36:10 PM) Juandev: yep (04:48:20 PM) ChanServ: (notice) [---c[]------ (Bastique) set flags +votiA on Adambro.
Then, a couple of days later...
QUOTE(#wikiversity-en April 1)
(10:29:24 AM) adambro: Moulton: I'm not sure why I'm bothering here. (10:29:54 AM) Moulton: I think you are bothering because, at ground level, you wish to learn to be a good scholar. (10:30:54 AM) adambro: Moulton: no, I'm bothering because I foolishly can't resist the temptation of responding
So this is your evidence of some great conspiracy? You're going to have to try harder than that.
So, Cary gives me ops in wikiversity-en then I later use that to ban you from the channel. Cary is one of a very limited number of people with the ability to give people ops on that channel so that he was kind enough to assist me there doesn't prove anything. Granting ops on channels where someone is an admin on the relevant project is routine. I don't recall requesting Cary grant me ops with anything other than that as the reason and nor did I discuss banning you from the channel with Cary, Jimbo, or anyone else. I've never been "briefed" by Jimbo et al regarding my contributions on Wikiversity.
As for being "unscholarly", my remarks regarding not knowing "why I'm bothering here" relate to the discussion I was having with you on IRC, not my wider participation in the Wikiversity project.
As for "how it came to be that Cary empowered [me] at Wikiversity", do you have any evidence to support that suggestion? I got custodianship through the normal process, Cary had no involvement.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I don't recall using the word "conspiracy" as I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But there is plenty of evidence of back-channel communication of which you are no doubt at least partially aware.
Back-channel communication isn't necessarily conspiratorial, but it is evidence of a lack of transparency in the political process. For example, Abd discovered yesterday that Mike.lifeguard had enacted undocumented global locks on Greg Kohser, where the log entry made reference to unspecified "negotiations" that were evidently nowhere to be found in the public record.
And earlier in this thread, Ottava expressed mystification over how you came to be an admin on WV. As near as I can tell, you haven't evidenced any plausible qualifications, other than your willingness to mindlessly sustain Jimbo's otherwise indefensible interventions at Wikiversity.
Regarding your "contributions" on Wikiversity, the evidence I've seen is that your primary role there is to mop up the messes rather than to contribute scholarly content. And per the feedback from JTNeill and Hillgentleman, your robotic mindless reverts are not particularly well-supported by conscientious academic judgment.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:30am)
Since Adam is here, perhaps he will explain how it came to be that Cary empowered him at Wikiversity (and on #wikiversity-en).
It's clear from the above transcript that somebody briefed Adam in advance regarding Jimbo's first intervention in Wikiversity, some two years ago.
All it takes is someone telling him that you're a disruptive influence. After that the rest is easy. They didn't have to specifically order him to block you; it's enough to say "That Moulton dude is trouble, watch out for him, and if you think it's necessary feel free to ban him for as long as you need".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:15am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:30am)
Since Adam is here, perhaps he will explain how it came to be that Cary empowered him at Wikiversity (and on #wikiversity-en). It's clear from the above transcript that somebody briefed Adam in advance regarding Jimbo's first intervention in Wikiversity, some two years ago.
All it takes is someone telling him that you're a disruptive influence. After that the rest is easy. They didn't have to specifically order him to block you; it's enough to say "That Moulton dude is trouble, watch out for him, and if you think it's necessary feel free to ban him for as long as you need".
So what am I disrupting? Am I disrupting "business as usual" where that business involves back-channel conversations to shut down any and all investigations into ethical lapses in the management practices of WMF-sponsored projects?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:14am)
Actually, I reckon Abd is more than a little apprehensive about shady operatives like Mike.lifeguard and Adambro carrying out the back-channel directives of Cary, Jimbo, et al. What's surprising is that these troublesome characters are still doing Jimbo's dirty work after all that happened in the wake of the recent interventions at WV and Commons.
From what I know, neither Jimbo or Cary talk to Adambro, nor really that many people at all except the Commons trolls, which are mostly anti WMF.
If Cary wanted something done, he normally contacts me. Cary has never really said much about Greg, and I doubt Cary really cares that much in general.
Also, mike.lifeguard is a Wikiversity admin. Please remember that. That was one adminship that I was involved in and actually thought was reasonble (as Mike knows quite a bit about range blockings and the rest, and was basically brought in to ensure that I didn't end up blocking the East Coast while trying to stop your IP jumping puppet show, or whatever you want to call it).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 3:08pm)
And earlier in this thread, Ottava expressed mystification over how you came to be an admin on WV. As near as I can tell, you haven't evidenced any plausible qualifications, other than your willingness to mindlessly sustain Jimbo's otherwise indefensible interventions at Wikiversity.
So you don't have any evidence to support the suggestion that Cary had any involvement with my custodianship? I thought not. Perhaps you should avoid making such suggestions of improper conduct if you can't back them up. I suppose that wouldn't be as exciting though would it?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:25am)
From what I know, neither Jimbo or Cary talk to Adambro, nor really that many people at all except the Commons trolls, which are mostly anti WMF.
Who summoned Cary to the IRC channel to empower Adam? It was either Adam himself, or an intermediary acting on Adam's behalf.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:25am)
If Cary wanted something done, he normally contacts me. Cary has never really said much about Greg, and I doubt Cary really cares that much in general.
Would you have kicked me from that IRC conversation? And if so, for what reason?
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:25am)
Also, mike.lifeguard is a Wikiversity admin. Please remember that. That was one adminship that I was involved in and actually thought was reasonable (as Mike knows quite a bit about range blockings and the rest, and was basically brought in to ensure that I didn't end up blocking the East Coast while trying to stop your IP jumping puppet show, or whatever you want to call it).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 3:38pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:25am)
From what I know, neither Jimbo or Cary talk to Adambro, nor really that many people at all except the Commons trolls, which are mostly anti WMF.
Who summoned Cary to the IRC channel to empower Adam? It was either Adam himself, or an intermediary acting on Adam's behalf.
As I've already said, I asked Cary to grant me ops as per the usual practice of admins on projects having ops on the relevant channel. Cary joining the IRC channel was a result of that request, made via private message on IRC. Perhaps that counts as me talking to Cary but me communicating with Jimbo or Cary is a very rare occurrence which I assume is what Ottava was suggesting.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:35am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 3:08pm)
And earlier in this thread, Ottava expressed mystification over how you came to be an admin on WV. As near as I can tell, you haven't evidenced any plausible qualifications, other than your willingness to mindlessly sustain Jimbo's otherwise indefensible interventions at Wikiversity.
So you don't have any evidence to support the suggestion that Cary had any involvement with my custodianship? I thought not. Perhaps you should avoid making such suggestions of improper conduct if you can't back them up. I suppose that wouldn't be as exciting though would it?
Where did I say "involvement with Custodianship"? I said "empowerment at Wikiversity and on #wikiversity-en." Do you deny the evidence that Cary was the functionary who expressly empowered you on #wikiversity-en? How, pray tell, did that happen? And would he have done that if he disapproved of your comparable role on Wikiversity?
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:47am)
As I've already said, I asked Cary to grant me ops as per the usual practice of admins on projects having ops on the relevant channel. Cary joining the IRC channel was a result of that request, made via private message on IRC. Perhaps that counts as me talking to Cary but me communicating with Jimbo or Cary is a very rare occurrence which I assume is what Ottava was suggesting.
So you admit to private back-channel communication with Cary, regarding your empowerment.
It's not the frequency with which such private back-channel communications occur. It's the circumstances and purposes of such private back-channel communication that we are investigating here.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
Oh, this is an "investigation". Sorry I didn't realise. I just thought we were having a casual chat. Do I need a lawyer?
Clearly I don't deny that Cary granted me ops on wikiversity-en. It is obviously public that he did and I've explained the circumstances. Cary had nothing to do with my custodianship. As I've said, I understand it to be usual practice to grant admins ops on the relevent channel so that he did so is hardly much of an endorsement. I'd think he'd have to have very serious concerns to refuse to grant me ops despite usual practise of doing so in the circumstances.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 4:48am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:47am)
But I have some evidence (from IRC) that Cary Bass recruited him to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts regarding his (Jimbo's) interventions against those who were promoting a review of ethical issues in WMF-sponsored projects.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:58am)
The evidence is that he's an unscholarly operative who is there to enforce Jimbo's previous edicts. Not so much a rogue operation as embedded corruption directed from the murky back-channels of WMF (via Jimbo and Cary).
I hope you won't leave everyone waiting too long before you get around to posting your "evidence".
Well, Adambro, this isn't a trial. Moulton has a POV, and it's an important one. Please don't take it personally. As I wrote, I wouldn't lump you in so easily with what Mike.lifeguard did.
My goal on Wikiversity has been the support of genuine community consensus, which must be inclusive, and certainly not only of critics like Moulton and Thekohser, but of "the other side" as well, and I don't see you as being at all extreme. At least not yet!
Mike.lifeguard also has a right to his POV. I'm questioning what certainly appears to be focused interference in Wikiversity, improper for a steward, but at this point it's a question, not an accusation. Wiki theory suggests dealing with problems at the lowest possible level, so, right now, there is me and a few others, perhaps, and Mike.lifeguard. If we can resolve this satisfactorily for all concerned, we've collectively won and good will come out of this. If not, then it will likely escalate, in any of many different possible ways, from direct appeals to Jimbo and perhaps the WMF Board -- because there are possible board-level issues here -- to RfC on meta or Wikiversity, to other broad process, up to and including support of other possible fora for educational resources in lieu of support of WMF projects. I'm not in charge of anything but my own actions. I'm getting what may be a little flak on Wikiversity from Diego, who seems to have drunk way too much "stewards are always right" Kool-Aid.
And I'm worried that ordinary vandalism is being routinely met with revision deletion on Wikiversity. Adambro, if you have been questioning this, as it seems, you are right on. Even if it might seem to be harmless, it creates suspicion for me every time I see something like "revision deleted" or "username deleted," which just happened on my own Talk page on WV. I reverted it, and had this happened on Wikipedia, I'd have asked an admin to do that. Moulton doesn't mind, I'm sure, that his IP shows. (If he does, I'll reconceal it.)
When revision deletion becomes routine, only admins know what's going on. That's very dangerous, and it creates a situation where the wiki will implode.
We can see, now, how the "convenience" of global accounts then sets up conditions for global control. It is essential that those who possess global tools be carefully restrained in their use, and responsible to the community they serve. The stewards manual on meta is quite explicit about this. The danger is a known one, but to prevent the damage requires a community willing to stand up when its rights are threatened. If that community does not exist, there will also not be the resources for WMF projects to meet future challenges, and any rat noticing this condition will wisely build his or her nest elsewhere. Not a safe place to invest time.
Greg, I've been testing to see if the community is sufficiently awake to allow something deep and real to be done here. I'm quite aware of evidence that it isn't. But awakening is something that can happen at any time, that conditions did not exist before does not prove that they don't exist now. There were also hopeful signs, and it's very possible that the situation is as Kelly Martin describes, rogue action supporting "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
However, Jimbo gave up his intrusive tools for a reason, I assume, and it wasn't merely for show, and Mike.lifeguard is defeating that purpose, it seems. I'll look and see if he has responded, I don't know yet. I rather doubt I'll be blocked, certainly not by him, not at this point. Unless he really does want to commit wiki-suicide, like WMC.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 11:13am)
Oh, this is an "investigation". Sorry I didn't realise. I just thought we were having a casual chat. Do I need a lawyer?
No, I don't believe in the Rules and Punishment Model.
This is about evolving to ethical best practices. It's a learning process, not a judicial one.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 11:13am)
Clearly I don't deny that Cary granted me ops on wikiversity-en. It is obviously public that he did and I've explained the circumstances. Cary had nothing to do with my custodianship. As I've said, I understand it to be usual practice to grant admins ops on the relevent channel so that he did so is hardly much of an endorsement. I'd think he'd have to have very serious concerns to refuse to grant me ops despite usual practise of doing so in the circumstances.
So you agree with my view that he did not disapprove of your empowerment on WV, and had no difficulty extending that to the IRC channel.
Good. Now let's move on to the next item in our curriculum.
JWSchmidt has been reading this thread, and this is his response, posted moments ago on #netknowledge...
QUOTE(#netknowledge)
(11:19:11 AM) JWSchmidt: It is difficult to judge when Adambro is following orders, trying to gain the favor of his masters or if he is just exercising his natural tendency to prevent people from speaking the truth.
That, in a nutshell, is what we are investigating, Adam. It's not an indictment. It's simply a mystery.
Perhaps you will kind enough to help us solve that mystery.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:28am)
New leadership can fix the fundamental problem by evolving from an anachronistic rule-based bureaucracy to an ethical function-based architecture. But doing so will make virtually all of the embedded bureaucrats obsolescent (although some of them can presumably learn how to operate in a modern function-based systems paradigm).
Yes. To me, the only question is how much damage and loss takes place ad interim.
I do have some vision of a functional system, and it isn't hugely different, in routine operation, than the present one, but the differences in non-routine operation, i.e., conflict, would be quite different. Paradoxically, they would be more like the vision often projected through policies and guidelines. Just with a light and efficient structure that implements those policies and prevents their corruption.
We are seeing, among other things, an anti-intellectual, anti-academic bias in WMF projects, which is quite a serious flaw in what is supposed to be an educational enterprise. Wikipedia, etc., become political enterprises, promoting a subtle world-view that is almost invisible to the oligarchy. Isn't it just the "way things are?" It's part of the same error as assuming that NPOV is a single point of view, rather than a consensus.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 4:30pm)
QUOTE(#wikiversity-en-projects)
(11:19:11 AM) JWSchmidt: It is difficult to judge when Adambro is following orders, trying to gain the favor of his masters or if he is just exercising his natural tendency to prevent people from speaking the truth.
That, in a nutshell, is what we are investigation, Adam. It's not an indictment. It's simply a mystery.
Perhaps you will kind enough to help us solve that mystery.
I thought I'd already addressed that but let me say it more clearly. There are no orders which I am following and I only have very limited contact with Jimbo et al. I don't have any "masters" nor do I care about trying to impress anyone. It is perhaps worth noting that one of the odd occasions I have talked to Jimbo was when I proposed that his admin rights on Wikinews were removed and he tried to persuade me he should have admin rights on that project. I wasn't convinced.
As for having a "natural tendency to prevent people from speaking the truth", I would disagree. I have no problem with people expressing their opinion but I am keen to see that they do so in a polite manner and at an appropriate venue.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 11:22am)
Moulton doesn't mind, I'm sure, that his IP shows.
As most of you know, I run my own servers (for the MuseNet.Org domain) from antique computers on my home DSL. The IP addresses for all the public servers in that domain are trivial to look up. And one or more of those IPs will also be serving as my outbound router for whatever desktop machine I happen to be sitting at. When Adam (or Ottava) blocks one of those IPs, I just cycle to another one.
And (in case it's not obvious) the reason I post as an IP (and manually sign my name) is because Jimbo had the User:Moulton account globally locked about a year and a half ago.
What we are talking about here is out-of-process back-channel blocks, site-bans, and global locks, where there was either no community process at all, or where the community process was bypassed, circumvented, short-circuited, or otherwise or over-ruled by the direct (but out-of-process) intervention by Jimbo, Cary, et al.
So far, such out-of-process interventions have touched on the accounts of Greg, PrivateMusiings, SB_Johnny, JWSchmidt, and myself. And what we all have in common is that we favored a candid academic review of the lapses in managerial ethics on WMF-sponsored projects, in the interest of helping the community evolve to ethical best practices.
Jimbo made it clear that he considered such academic reviews of ethical best practices to be "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects. He has twice intervened to shut them down, either sending Cary in to do it for him, or doing it himself when Cary, the stewards, the bureaucrats, or the custodians balked at carrying out his directives. For the past four months, Adam has been almost the only functionary who continues to enforce Jimbo's out-of-process edicts dating from a year and a half ago.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 11:31am)
We are seeing, among other things, an anti-intellectual, anti-academic bias in WMF projects, which is quite a serious flaw in what is supposed to be an educational enterprise.
Precisely so. And when a few of us sought to enrich WV with some serious and relevant academic content, we ran into flack from IDCab and other defenders of the demonstrably corrupt practices that ultimately led to the ArbCom case against FeloniousMonk. I daresay that had IDCab cooperated with us on the study of ethical best practices, FM might have mended his ways and avoided being smacked down by ArbCom.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 11:46am)
As for having a "natural tendency to prevent people from speaking the truth", I would disagree. I have no problem with people expressing their opinion but I am keen to see that they do so in a polite manner and at an appropriate venue.
Why do you consider WV (or its affiliated IRC channel) an inappropriate venue for me to articulate the insights that I have sought in vain to share with those who value the learning process?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:52am)
For the past four months, Adam has been almost the only functionary who continues to enforce Jimbo's out-of-process edicts dating from a year and a half ago.
If Adambro is now in the mood to speak his mind, it might be worth going back to explore some of the questions he refused to answer during the Wikiversity community discussion of his custodianship candidacy, such as: "Why did you start editing at Wikiversity?"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:52am)
For the past four months, Adam has been almost the only functionary who continues to enforce Jimbo's out-of-process edicts dating from a year and a half ago.
If Adambro is now in the mood to speak his mind, it might be worth going back to explore some of the questions he refused to answer during the Wikiversity community discussion of his custodianship candidacy, such as: "Why did you start editing at Wikiversity?"
And it very much might not be worth it. We have no subpoena power, nor should we. There is room for wikihistory projects, probably some on Wikiversity, with proper ethical rules, or on netknowledge.org or elsewhere, but testimony cannot be compelled.
Meanwhile, on the real topic here, the alleged "lording over," I have proposed Wikiversitans and others concerned consider a request to meta (on the steward request page) to allow Thekohser to edit his Talk page on Wikiversity, i.e., to lift the lock either locally (I think that's possible for a steward and maybe for a bureaucrat and even maybe for an admin, but I sure don't know how to do it) or globally, to return the situation to what seemed to be a broad consensus that individual wikis should be able to decide individually, with meta interference only under emergency conditions or temporarily. Instead of complaining about this or that personal grudge, or even some possibly legitimate, in a sense, prosecutorial mentality, how about addressing the basic and immediate issue, through a due-process request?
Mike.lifeguard has not yet responded, last I looked. But any steward could lift the lock, and if the steward thinks Mike should be consulted, fine. We should not be in a hurry, but neither should we delay initiating the process beyond necessity.
One step at a time. By the time we have discussed this adequately on Wikiversity, I expect that Mike will likely have responded. I hope that people on WV will keep it simple and not debate the wisdom of unblocking Thekohser. Quite simply, that's not the issue, it is whether or not we can, as a community, decide to begin communication with Thekohser, not whether or not he should be blocked. I have, myself, formed no opinion on that, other than noticing that the block was out of process. Hey! The emperor has no clothes!
As to Adambro, whatever he did or did not do in the past, I see him as being on the right side here, he supported allowing the Talk page access, even though he was the one who removed it.
I also just noticed that the admin who globally locked Moulton also recently supported the Remove Founder RfC on meta. People change, they grow up, they become more mature, they come to understand the possibilities of compromise, they begin to see the deeper issues, etc. If we think of ourselves as reformers, we'd better not freeze people into what we imagine of their prior thinking and motivations, or we shoot ourselves in the foot.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 5:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:52am)
For the past four months, Adam has been almost the only functionary who continues to enforce Jimbo's out-of-process edicts dating from a year and a half ago.
If Adambro is now in the mood to speak his mind, it might be worth going back to explore some of the questions he refused to answer during the Wikiversity community discussion of his custodianship candidacy, such as: "Why did you start editing at Wikiversity?"
No, I remain as uninterested in answering your list of 31 questions as I was at the time.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:04pm)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 5:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:52am)
For the past four months, Adam has been almost the only functionary who continues to enforce Jimbo's out-of-process edicts dating from a year and a half ago.
If Adambro is now in the mood to speak his mind, it might be worth going back to explore some of the questions he refused to answer during the Wikiversity community discussion of his custodianship candidacy, such as: "Why did you start editing at Wikiversity?"
No, I remain as uninterested in answering your list of 31 questions as I was at the time.
Sensible. Maybe one question, if you want to, in some neutral forum, and probably not now.
However: Discussion of the proposal to lift global lock for Thekohser on Wikiversity (Not an unblock request, the unblock, for Talk page access, has already been done.). Adambro, you have now expressed a conclusion opposite to what I'd thought, which certainly does raise some questions for me. You don't have to answer them, but, remember, the world is watching.
Perhaps you merely misunderstood the proposal and will reconsider or clarify.
What we do is visible and, with a wiki, and can remain so for a long time. Even if not now, the future is watching.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:04pm)
No, I remain as uninterested in answering your list of 31 questions as I was at the time.
Indeed, why should he answer them? He was sent there for a purpose, and the skids greased along the way; answering them was unnecessary then and serves absolutely no purpose now. It's not like he has a reputation to consider.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Moulton on WV Colloquium)
I propose that the community, in the interest of demonstrating the application of the Scientific Method, request an unlock as suggested above, for the express purpose of falsifying the hypothesis colloquially known as Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Ever.
If that thesis (which I first posited over 20 years ago) is false, here is an excellent chance to falsify it. And if the thesis is true, then I reckon this experiment will simply be yet another confirming example of a Polionic System.
And with breathtaking speed, Adambro has reified Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia by reverting the above proposal to falsify it.
Thanks, Adam. You've been very helpful in demonstrating that Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia applies without question and without debate to Wikiversity.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:29pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:04pm)
No, I remain as uninterested in answering your list of 31 questions as I was at the time.
Indeed, why should he answer them? He was sent there for a purpose, and the skids greased along the way; answering them was unnecessary then and serves absolutely no purpose now. It's not like he has a reputation to consider.
What style of tin foil hat do you wear? Just wondering. What evidence do you have for your suggestion that I "was sent there for a purpose"? None? Well, now there is a surprise. I don't think I need to explain why I care little about my reputation amongst the Wikipedia Review fraternity.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:31pm)
QUOTE(Moulton on WV Colloquium)
I propose that the community, in the interest of demonstrating the application of the Scientific Method, request an unlock as suggested above, for the express purpose of falsifying the hypothesis colloquially known as Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Ever.
If that thesis (which I first posited over 20 years ago) is false, here is an excellent chance to falsify it. And if the thesis is true, then I reckon this experiment will simply be yet another confirming example of a Polionic System.
And with breathtaking speed, Adambro has reified Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia by reverting the above proposal to falsify it.
Thanks, Adam. You've been very helpful in demonstrating that Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia applies without question and without debate to Wikiversity.
It demonstrates no such thing. In any case, I'm an eventualist, something that can be difficult to understand for young whippersnappers like you....
Your comment is important and, I predict, will eventually be restored to that discussion. But maybe not today. What I'm doing there is not a POINT violation, it is not a "breaching experiment," nor is it designed as a test of the theory about bureaucracy, it is merely that by observing what happens, we may be able to derive some evidence. Rather, it is, in depth, what it was openly intended to be, an assertion of the right of local wikis to self-determination when what they do does not affect the rights of other wikis or the WMF. We on Wikiversity should be able to make our own decision about whether or not to communicate with Thekohser and, for that matter, you, Barry.
I am not prejudicing any conclusion on blocking/unblocking, this is purely about the right of Wikiversity to decide. If Adambro's position stands, as he just expressed, well, that's his right, but, as well, the rest of us will make our own decisions accordingly. As we will either way, and as people will decide about me. If the Wikiversity community doesn't support its own rights, there will be, I'm likely to expect, some more who conclude, as others have already, that it is not a safe place to invest resources. One more straw on the camel's back. How many more can the camel carry? I'd rather not find out. I'd prefer to start unloading the camel, and I have means to do it, but I'm not about to continue that process if straws keep getting added without the basic issue being addressed. It's time. Delay is very costly. But one more day? Piffle.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:39pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:29pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:04pm)
No, I remain as uninterested in answering your list of 31 questions as I was at the time.
Indeed, why should he answer them? He was sent there for a purpose, and the skids greased along the way; answering them was unnecessary then and serves absolutely no purpose now. It's not like he has a reputation to consider.
What style of tin foil hat do you wear? Just wondering. What evidence do you have for your suggestion that I "was sent there for a purpose"? None? Well, now there is a surprise. I don't think I need to explain why I care little about my reputation amongst the Wikipedia Review fraternity.
From an outside perspective, your presence there was puzzling. Rather than this obscure beating about the bush, it is apparent that you have no interest in the content of WikiVersity, you have just rolled across there to administrate, and your administration is not under the direction of the community but based on your own idiosyncratic views of what needs to be done.
As you have no apparent connection or investment in Wikiversity, it does beg the question of why you are there in a role that appears to be, from some perspectives, disruptive.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:39pm)
What evidence do you have for your suggestion that I "was sent there for a purpose"? None? Well, now there is a surprise.
Which begs the unanswered question of the true reason you went to Wikiversity.
I doubt you intentionally went there to help me demonstrate Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia, but I'm gratified you did.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:39pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:31pm)
Thanks, Adam. You've been very helpful in demonstrating that Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia applies without question and without debate to Wikiversity.
No worries, any time.
I wasn't too worried that it would be falsified, but I was astounded by the speed and alacrity with which you reified, established, and affirmed it.
This should have a bearing on Abd's question about whether to stick it out at WV and invite the people from IDEA there. Abd, you now have incontrovertible evidence to support the view that the bureaucratic problems on WV simply cannot be fixed, full stop.
Or do you still see a way to falsify that pessimistic view, notwithstanding Adam's helpful role in affirming it?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:51pm)
I don't think I need to explain why I care little about my reputation amongst the Wikipedia Review fraternity.
Well, the "fraternity" here includes many who deeply care about Wikipedia and who have considerable clout with it, as well as some seriously dedicated critics. But whether you need to explain or not is something that is entirely up to you.
QUOTE
From an outside perspective, your presence there was puzzling. Rather than this obscure beating about the bush, it is apparent that you have no interest in the content of WikiVersity, you have just rolled across there to administrate, and your administration is not under the direction of the community but based on your own idiosyncratic views of what needs to be done.
As you have no apparent connection or investment in Wikiversity, it does beg the question of why you are there in a role that appears to be, from some perspectives, disruptive.
Sure, from some perspectives. However, Adambro has not been, recently, acting in a way that would clearly confirm this. He is entitled to the same assumptions of good faith as anyone else, and he doesn't seem to be, necessarily, the most "disruptive" of the presently active administrators, over the last few months (as far as anything I can see.) I'm much more concerned about the frequent usage lately of revision deletion which, even though it may be justified in each individual case, creates an atmosphere of secrecy and amplifies paranoia about the administrative cabal. And Adambro has questioned that. And it hasn't always been properly justified; this, indeed, is part of the danger of using revision deletion, because once it becomes routine, then abuse becomes harder to detect.
As a community, Wikiversity needs to face the issues of administrative abuse, and it needs to set up minimally disruptive process to consider it. Without that process, we end up with disgruntled users who have no means of redress and disgruntled administrators who are, perhaps, falsely or harshly accused of abuse. I propose fixing the real problem, the lack of efficient process and structure, rather than continuing to make an old mistake, believing that the problem is the "bad people" and that we can fix it by getting rid of them. That's an error made on "both sides," eh?
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:59pm)
This should have a bearing on Abd's question about whether to stick it out at WV and invite the people from IDEA there. Abd, you now have incontrovertible evidence to support the view that the bureaucratic problems on WV simply cannot be fixed, full stop.
Well, I already invited them, so the issue is rather do I follow up and specifically and personally encourage them, or do I let them know it was a Bad Idea and give them other options? I'll give them other options anyway, because diversity is very important (and they know that, very well, it's part of the message).
QUOTE
Or do you still see a way to falsify that pessimistic view, notwithstanding Adam's helpful role in affirming it?
What I see is that we don't have an answer yet. To some extent, we may never know, because circumstances can always change. The question is how much thermite is needed to effect the necessary change. Sometimes, none. I'm not ready to light that magnesium fuse, not yet. But there is a long term issue: when some person or organization or nation, whatever, attempts to take over the central position of speaking for humanity (and "all human knowledge" does this), there are Higher Considerations and individual freedom is transcended by fundamental human purpose.
Remarkably, this was an issue addressed by certain academics at the AERO conference.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:43pm)
Your comment is important and, I predict, will eventually be restored to that discussion. But maybe not today.
Do you reckon the question will be settled in my (remaining) lifetime?
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:43pm)
We on Wikiversity should be able to make our own decision about whether or not to communicate with Thekohser and, for that matter, you, Barry.
It's a good thing WV isn't the only venue in town, eh?
Adam lives in England, so I dunno whether he is familiar with the First Amendment (Right of Assembly). Perhaps Dogbiscuit can help explain why Great Britain isn't listed among the countries that guarantee that right.
In any event, Adam has decreed that your right to engage in scholarly dialogue with me or Greg does not obtain at Wikiversity. Nor does he seem inclined to even consider the issue for more than a brief minute before denying you that right.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:43pm)
If the Wikiversity community doesn't support its own rights, there will be, I'm likely to expect, some more who conclude, as others have already, that it is not a safe place to invest resources.
I predict that you will eventually conclude what others have sadly concluded -- namely that WV does not rise to the minimum requirements of an authentic learning community.
But it's still a great laboratory in which to demonstrate the behavior of a community that doesn't meet the minimum requirements one would expect of a modern learning organization.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I see where Adam has now reversed his position with respect to Abd's proposal, albeit not for the reason I proposed. Adam seems to assume that the stewards will acquiesce to the request to revert the global lock on Greg's account. But if the proposal goes forward, we will have a chance to learn whether Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia is affirmed or refuted over at Meta. And either way, it's a good example of the application of the protocols of the Scientific Method to test a controversial theory.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:28am)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 4:16am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:58am)
Like I said, once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Ever. And if it's a corrupt bureaucracy, the mistakes will earn compound interest.
Would you care to expand that? Do you mean mistakes cannot be undone? That 'mistake' is an example of the best they can do? Can a new leadership/bureaucracy correct the damage?
I first stated that notion (which came to be known as Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia) over twenty years ago, so it's not a comment about any particular bureaucracy of note.
It's an empirical observation that I have found to be true with exceedingly rare exceptions.
In a true, pure bureaucracy (i.e. one governed entirely by bureaucratic rules which are followed to the letter), it's tantamount to a theorem. The reason for this is because rule-driven systems are too weak to support the level of scientifically grounded model-based reasoning and diagnostic reasoning required to support the higher level of functionality needed for a graceful self-correcting, self-regulated system.
There is an inherent (theoretical) limit to what any rule-based system can do. Some recurring mistakes can be fixed, going forward, by changing the rules (so as to avoid repeating the same disgraceful or idiotic mistake again and again), but there is generally no practical way of fixing all such past mistakes retroactively.
But more importantly, there is a special class of mistake that no rule-driven system can avoid or repair without an apocalyptic paradigm shift that fundamentally discards the rule-based architecture and supplants it with a modern function-based architecture. Moreover it is fairly easy to crash a rule-based system, by presenting it with a novel situation that the rules don't cover. Here, on W-R, Greg Kohs takes delight in doing that routinely with his favorite sparring partner in the game of Crash the System.
New leadership can fix the fundamental problem by evolving from an anachronistic rule-based bureaucracy to an ethical function-based architecture. But doing so will make virtually all of the embedded bureaucrats obsolescent (although some of them can presumably learn how to operate in a modern function-based systems paradigm).
Hope you don't mind, but maybe I can translate that into non-Moultonese (I think some of the kiddos may be confusticated): "Rule-bound systems can't correct themselves, but need someone who can function outside the rules if they're going to know how to change them."
Of course, one of the problems in WMF is that they try to apply a convoluted form of consensus to create an change rules, which doesn't work very well when the vast majority is dedicated to following the rules they've drilled into their heads in order to get along and advance.
If I were still an academic (which, happily, I'm not), I'd be very interested in doing a comparative study of wikipedianism and quakerism. They both value the words of every individual and make decisions through consensus, but with the Quakers that's due to a mystical notion of God speaking through every human soul: consensus among Quakers is something like weeding out sampling errors (since none of us can perfectly hear God). Wikipedianism doesn't seem to have a corresponding underlying principle.
Then again, Quakerism is a dying religion, while wikipedianism seems to be quite virulent. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:36pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:14pm)
He is entitled to the same assumptions of good faith as anyone else
Which is to say, none.
In the real world, if someone turns up and joins in some voluntary venture, you would expect to be able to divine a motivation and if their actions are questionable you would think it actually very appropriate to question what drives someone to join. When he reasons not apparent (and compared with Wikipedia where it is quite easy to imagine various reasons why it is attractive, it is not apparent), it is appropriate to question their motives. It is not a question of good or bad faith, (indeed one of the Wikipedia problems is the suggestion that someone should have a normal inquisitiveness is considered a character defect), it is rational behaviour.
I can quite understand why Jimbo would not welcome Moulton or Greg onto his projects, far too troubling for him. Trouble is, they are not his projects, and so it begs the question of whether he speaks for the real supervision - the WMF. If the WMF are so interested in the governance of a trivial little wiki that is actually pretty irrelevant, it begs the question of why the WMF are not prepared to put the same effort into the much larger and more troubling issues in other areas.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
BTW Moulton: I'm pretty sure Cary opped adambro just as a matter of course when the channel ownership changed (mikeu and I used to co-own it, but I threw in the towel and I don't think Mike's around much these days either). Not that I think he was justified in banning you, but I doubt Cary opped him for that purpose.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 3:00pm)
Not that I think he [Adam] was justified in banning you [from IRC], but I doubt Cary opped him for that purpose.
Do you reckon that Cary drew back from playing that role after he had to back-pedal from "issuing directives" to merely "offering strong advice" when he previously intervened, two summers ago?
If, as you and Kelly suggest, Adam was acting entirely on his own, then the question to ask is this one: What, exactly, did Adam find so troubling or threatening about my presence and participation in that IRC discussion? Unlike previous occasions, no one was calling for a sysop to boot me off the channel.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 2:54pm)
If I were still an academic (which, happily, I'm not), I'd be very interested in doing a comparative study of wikipedianism and quakerism. They both value the words of every individual and make decisions through consensus, but with the Quakers that's due to a mystical notion of God speaking through every human soul: consensus among Quakers is something like weeding out sampling errors (since none of us can perfectly hear God). Wikipedianism doesn't seem to have a corresponding underlying principle.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:16pm)
Adam lives in England, so I dunno whether he is familiar with the First Amendment (Right of Assembly). Perhaps Dogbiscuit can help explain why Great Britain isn't listed among the countries that guarantee that right.
Why should Great Britain be listed? Moulton, being an American, may not be aware that it is quite abnormal for Great Britain to do anything. Usually, such things are decided by the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom, or by the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments or Welah Assembly within their jurisdictions. There has been no parliament of Great Britain for over 200 years.
In fact, the United Kingdom (not Great Britain!) does guarantee the right of peaceful assembly, because it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Please see Clause 11 thereof.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 2:42pm)
I see where Adam has now reversed his position with respect to Abd's proposal, albeit not for the reason I proposed.
Do we care what the reason is for an agreement? So far, it could obviously change, it looks like either 100% for making the request, or a stand-aside or two.
QUOTE
Adam seems to assume that the stewards will acquiesce to the request to revert the global lock on Greg's account.
Perhaps. I also consider that likely, if I or someone else goes there without brandishing a big axe demanding it be ground, and showing a favorable local discussion. There are many stewards, including some quite familiar with the issues and others who might simply accept local consensus. If this were presented as an attack on Mike.lifeguard, the chances of approval go down drastically, because birds of a feather flock together, or circle the wagons when an attack on one is perceived.
Which is why I might see if we can get some consensus on refactoring the request, not to conceal dissent, but, in fact, to draw less attention to what is basically irrelevant, complaints about the past. In the end, it's what the community wants that counts, and everyone who wants to be a part of that should be a part of it.
Including Moulton, who is, after all, supporting what seems to be consensus here. Ironically, the only participant I've noticed so far who hasn't supported the proposal is JWSchmidt, who seems to be more concerned about complaining than fixing. Takes all kinds, I suppose.
Consensus obtained by suppressing a faction is not consensus.
QUOTE
But if the proposal goes forward, we will have a chance to learn whether Moulton's Nth Law of Administrivia is affirmed or refuted over at Meta. And either way, it's a good example of the application of the protocols of the Scientific Method to test a controversial theory.
Well, not exactly. That is, there is no control experiment. As to science, it would be more like astronomy or anthropology or sociology, where controlled experiment may not be possible. This is not, Moulton, a breaching experiment, and I expect it to be non-disruptive, except as some might make it so. I've been careful to proceed in dealing with the overall situation -- which goes back years and is not going to be resolved instantly, I expect -- step-by-step, always looking to be inclusive and to quiet fears instead of inflaming them. Maybe it won't work, that possibility is always there, but this part is a kind of science: we won't know unless we try. Little by little, we go far.
Small changes may indeed shift the overall situation, where large changes are impossible. It is possible that a seemingly small change will reverse the entire "problem."
Or not. John Gatto says just to blow the whole thing up, the public school system (his concern) is irretrievable. Maybe. But maybe not. Gatto is very popular among the alternative education people, who tend to be very "progressive" and shocked to realize that Gatto is a libertarian, apparently, but they love that he's telling the truth about the situation as it is. They don't necessarily agree with his solutions, but it all starts by admitting the present reality....
Collectively, we each do that at our own pace, some will never admit it, but many will. Eventually, enough.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
One would think that a British author would have included a reference to his own country's version of the Right of Assembly. After all, this was the English Wikipedia.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:40pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 2:42pm)
I see where Adam has now reversed his position with respect to Abd's proposal, albeit not for the reason I proposed.
Do we care what the reason is for an agreement?
We care about the learning process. People can (and do) learn how to come to agreement on issues. But it's not at all clear how to do that with many of the characters in this drama.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:40pm)
I've been careful to proceed in dealing with the overall situation -- which goes back years and is not going to be resolved instantly, I expect -- step-by-step, always looking to be inclusive and to quiet fears instead of inflaming them. Maybe it won't work, that possibility is always there, but this part is a kind of science: we won't know unless we try. Little by little, we go far.
And this is the question addressed by Moulton's Law -- whether it's possible or practical to correct a mistake that has already gone uncorrected for years.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 4:40pm)
Ironically, the only participant I've noticed so far who hasn't supported the proposal is JWSchmidt, who seems to be more concerned about complaining than fixing.
My comment in that discussion thread is a call for trying to undo all the effects of Jimbo's interventions into Wikiversity affairs, including the bad blocks and out-of-process page deletions. Is it really asking too much for people to judge my support without me using some {{support}} template?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Abd has been proposing baby steps, with a long rest period between each attempted step.
And so far he's been living more on hope than than satisfaction.
JWSchmidt notes that it will take Seven League Boots to complete the journey.
In a sense, both are right. It's only practical to take infinitesimal baby steps. But at that rate it will take an infinite amount of time to complete the journey.
I will also note that if you take the combined ages of Abd, JWSchmidt, SB_Johnny and myself, you have close to 200 years of life experience going up against Adambro who is about 20 years old and who loves nothing more than to frustrate and defeat seasoned acadamics like the four of us.
As I said to him back on April Fool's Day on IRC, he has a God-given right to remain ignorant, and there isn't a damn thing any of us over-educated old fogies can do about it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 7:14pm)
Abd has been proposing baby steps, with a long rest period between each attempted step.
I'm skeptical about the Wikiversity community ever being able to resist the hostile take-over that was imposed in 2008. Most honest members of the community left in disgust. Others fear that Jimbo will carry out his threat to close the project. Other Wikiversity participants are willing to sacrifice people like Thekohser as long as the thought police leave them alone. Wikiversity is a great "living history" project that demonstrates how a small gang of thugs can disrupt an interesting experiment in online learning.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Yes, they transformed WV from an authentic learning community into an absurdist farce.
It's still usable as a laboratory for those who want to take a practicum in the theater of the absurd. In a sense that transformation was a good thing, because it helped expose the rest of WMF as variants on that theme.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:20pm)
It's still usable as a laboratory for those who want to take a practicum in the theater of the absurd. In a sense that transformation was a good thing, because it helped expose the rest of WMF as variants on that theme.
Having done that, permit me to ask: to what end?
Nothing is changing or improving there that I can detect. Young Mr. Brooks is still a powerful troll, and still unwilling to listen to anything resembling reason. WP is still not an "encyclopedia" and WV is still not an educational resource---they're both being run as if they were still the Jimbo/Cary Pet Project of 2002. A few minor cracks, like the WV threat that Jimbo made and the resulting outrage, don't seem to have changed the fundamental culture of the place. Greg remains global-banned and you still can't get a sympathetic audience on any WV page.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Now we come to the daunting bridge, guarded by the intrepid troll
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 3:40am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 8:20pm)
Wikiversity is still usable as a laboratory for those who want to take a practicum in the theater of the absurd. In a sense that transformation was a good thing, because it helped expose the rest of WMF as variants on that theme.
Having done that, permit me to ask: to what end?
An excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it.
The original Wikiversity model adopts the classroom style education model of packaged instructional course materials, to be delivered by professorial subject-matter experts to a cadre of students hungry for book-learning knowledge in the subject at hand.
But if you look at the history of educational processes dating back to the dawn of human civilization, you will note that the classroom model, delivering encyclopedic chunks of educational material, is a fairly recent one. For most of human history, cultural knowledge and wisdom was imparted through storytelling -- via myths, legends and fables.
For the most part, we've lost the art of storycraft.
And, as Abd no doubt heard at AERO, we need to rediscover the power of story as an educational vehicle.
I'll be the first to admit that I suck at the Bardic Arts.
And so it's frankly a research subject of mine.
But where can an old semi-retired systems engineer like me learn (or practice) the art of storycraft? Where can I find a laboratory to craft improvisational snippets of theater?
Nothing is changing or improving there that I can detect. Young Mr. Brooks is still a powerful troll, and still unwilling to listen to anything resembling reason. WP is still not an "encyclopedia" and WV is still not an educational resource---they're both being run as if they were still the Jimbo/Cary Pet Project of 2002. A few minor cracks, like the WV threat that Jimbo made and the resulting outrage, don't seem to have changed the fundamental culture of the place. Greg remains global-banned and you still can't get a sympathetic audience on any WV page.
Indeed, it's a classic example of the heroic adventure quest reminiscent of the Justice League comics. And I'm poorly cast as Clark Kent, Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne. What could be more absurd than Moulton as the hapless would-be superhero? Clearly it would be farcical to play that role.
Well, hey. What's wrong with a farcical parody of the Justice League characters?
What? You say you don't care for the comic book genre?
Well how about a reprise of Les Miserables with Adambro self-cast as Inspector Javert, the obsessive cop who spares no energy in chasing the hapless and unredemptive Jean Valjean to the ends of the earth.
Do you care for redemption stories?
Can WP be redeemed? Can WV be redeemed? Can Adambro be redeemed? Can Jon Awbrey, Greg Kohs, or Moulton be redeemed?
More to the point, what can we personally and individually learn through modeling and reifying our experiences within the genre of classical story models?
So Adam Brooks may be unwilling to listen to reason, but he's more than willing to play the role of the intrepid and unrelenting antagonist, for any imaginable protagonistic character that I (or Greg) care to try on.
Can you think of a higher or better use of WV and its resident troll who providentially challenges us to cross his well-defended bridge?
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 10:53pm)
This is what the cited article says...
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Examples of the national and regional constitutions recognising the freedom of assembly are:
Moulton may not realise that neither the United Kingdom nor any of its constituent parts has a written constitution. If the writer of this article was British, no doubt he was well aware of the fact.
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:49am)
And note that the first fucking word is "examples", not "comprehensive list".
Well worth repeating.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:25am)
One would think that a British author would have included a reference to his own country's version of the Right of Assembly. After all, this was the English Wikipedia.
it's the English language Wikipedia, i.e. mostly American, not the British Wikipedia.
If you read the text (at the link above), you will see that the bulk of the document is a recitation of a litany of civil rights abuses levied against the tyrannical King George...
QUOTE(US Declaration of Independence)
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
And then comes the list of particulars, indicting King George for his unbecoming tyrannies.
Perhaps if I have time later this weekend, I'll adapt a parody, substituting Adam Brooks for King George, and reciting a comparable litany of abuses.
If you read the text (at the link above), you will see that the bulk of the document is a recitation of a litany of civil rights abuses levied against the tyrannical King George...
QUOTE(US Declaration of Independence)
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
And then comes the list of particulars, indicting King George for his unbecoming tyrannies.
Perhaps if I have time later this weekend, I'll adapt a parody, substituting Adam Brooks for King George, and reciting a comparable litany of abuses.
It appears I'm the latest scapegoat for the low activity at Wikiversity. Instead of trying to think of yet another thing I apparently don't understand or appreciate, I would appreciate any constructive suggestions you may have as to how Wikiversity can be improved. Extra points are awarded if your suggestions don't include the usual attacks on Jimbo, me, or anyone else.
If you read the text (at the link above), you will see that the bulk of the document is a recitation of a litany of civil rights abuses levied against the tyrannical King George...
QUOTE(US Declaration of Independence)
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
And then comes the list of particulars, indicting King George for his unbecoming tyrannies.
Perhaps if I have time later this weekend, I'll adapt a parody, substituting Adam Brooks for King George, and reciting a comparable litany of abuses.
And yet funnily enough the original draft document of the declaration described Americans as "subjects", not "citizens":
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:26am)
It appears I'm the latest scapegoat for the low activity at Wikiversity. Instead of trying to think of yet another thing I apparently don't understand or appreciate, I would appreciate any constructive suggestions you may have as to how Wikiversity can be improved. Extra points are awarded if your suggestions don't include the usual attacks on Jimbo, me, or anyone else.
And then you might suffer the likes of Abd and JWSchmidt to host constructive conversations with people like me and Greg Kohs on their own talk pages there.
Otherwise, it stands to reason they will abandon WV and migrate (as others have) to alternate venues like NetKnowledge.Org
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:44pm)
And then you might suffer the likes of Abd and JWSchmidt to host constructive conversations with people like me and Greg Kohs on their own talk pages there.
I've given my support to Abd's proposal that Greg be allowed to use his talk page. I don't think that issue is in my hands.
I wasn't making that distinction. Either way you slice it, WV adopts a fairly conventional instructional model of course materials.
And while there may well be a valid market for that (after all, JTNeill and Leigh Blackall use it that way), there seems to be preference in WikiCulture for learning by direct experience in the spirit of a Comedy of Errors (except that it's more likely to be a tragedy).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:26am)
It appears I'm the latest scapegoat for the low activity at Wikiversity. Instead of trying to think of yet another thing I apparently don't understand or appreciate, I would appreciate any constructive suggestions you may have as to how Wikiversity can be improved. Extra points are awarded if your suggestions don't include the usual attacks on Jimbo, me, or anyone else.
No, you're just making an easy target out of yourself: I don't think anyone thinks you're the problem.
As for suggestions, I don't have any. No offense (at all!), but the kind of changes that are needed are "above your paygrade".
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals (i.e. Jimbo, Sebmol MaxSem and Mike.lifeguard) didn't enact out-of-process global locks in defiance of community process and community consensus, it wouldn't be necessary to declare independence from their unbecoming and tyrannical practices.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:48am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:44pm)
And then you might suffer the likes of Abd and JWSchmidt to host constructive conversations with people like me and Greg Kohs on their own talk pages there.
I've given my support to Abd's proposal that Greg be allowed to use his talk page. I don't think that issue is in my hands.
The only reason to go begging to Mike.lifeguard is to find out if he affirms or refutes my thesis that bureaucracies are incapable of correcting their past mistakes. All Greg has to do is what I normally do -- post without logging in and manually paste in a signature.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Adam, while I have you on the line, permit me to direct your attention to this page of unanswered questions that provide some of the backstory that transpired before your arrival at WV. It will help you understand the problem with out-of-process interventions of the sort JWSchmidt keeps railing about.
As to the feeling of being scape-goated, I can empathize.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:26am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:54pm)
So perhaps that explains why Adam Brooks doesn't seem to recognize, appreciate. or honor the concept of constitutional rights.[...]
Perhaps if I have time later this weekend, I'll adapt a parody, substituting Adam Brooks for King George, and reciting a comparable litany of abuses.
It appears I'm the latest scapegoat for the low activity at Wikiversity. Instead of trying to think of yet another thing I apparently don't understand or appreciate, I would appreciate any constructive suggestions you may have as to how Wikiversity can be improved. Extra points are awarded if your suggestions don't include the usual attacks on Jimbo, me, or anyone else.
Well, you get points for this post, Adambro. You also get points for reversing your opposition to the proposal that the WV community request reversal of the global lock on Thekohser, because it steps back from the more common administrative response of "until this troll admits he was wrong, wrong, wrong," and accepts our just and necessary blocks, reverts, etc., he does not exist and anything from a non-existent user can be reverted on sight and anyone who appears to support him is disruptive."
Now, Moulton, given the above, I can see that we aren't particularly close to a point where I could propose the same lift for you. My sense is that, really, you prefer to be banned, it fits better with your predilictions. I can understand. In a way, I wish that WP would go ahead and ban me, because then I'd be completely free to sock whenever I choose. But they haven't, so I'm not there yet. In my case, and most recently, my topic and MYOB ban were simply enforced by an administrator following a shallow interpretation of a program, i.e., what would be expected from someone who isn't particularly bright. He's not King George and I wouldn't dream of digging up his real name and flapping it about, he have to do a whole hell of a lot more damage than merely blocking one user, even if that user is me.
Adambro doesn't seem to be to be terribly abusive. I don't agree with some of his actions, but it's a wiki. Admins have limited powers against a community that's awake. The older events with Moulton left much deeper damage, and I agree that the ability of the community to recover is questionable. King George he is not, he's not even a lackey of the King, who, by the way, did abdicate, but there are still instinctive promoters of the royal agenda around. Give it time.
However, if we can establish that the community is relatively safe, i.e, that if it minds its own business and does not allow WV to be used as a base to attack the rest of the project (or "criticize" without establishing safeguards and guidelines for what can and cannot be done), it will not be subject to arbitrary and capricious and self-serving intervention from "on high," it is then possible that new talent will be recruited or otherwise appear. I have the sense now that the active WV admin core can and will assist in this. And that includes Adambro, who is showing a capacity to cooperate beyond previously perceived limitations.
I predict, somewhat hopefully, that, if the global lock piffle is dealt with, Thekohser will cooperate and agree to sensible personal restrictions that will allow his unblock, his non-controversial participation, and even controversial participation within safeguards and boundaries that all of us, really, should respect.
Whether or not Wikiversity deserves his time and efforts is another issue.
For Moulton, well, Barry, have you tried EMDR? I highly recommend it, from personal experience. Low doses of methylphenidate can also be quite helpful. The trick is not to lose your intellectual edge and capacities, your deep insight, while disconnecting from the traumatic programming that instinctively drives the dysfunctional communication. But it's up to you. You don't have to change for me, it's just a suggestion if you want to be more effective.
Balance, Moulton. Don't leave home without it.
Yes, baby steps. Having had six babies, I'm amazed how quickly they go from baby steps to walking and running until you wish they'd settle down and sit sometimes! If I extrapolated from how long it took them to take those first steps, I'd think they'd never be travelling. My youngest from the first litter of five is in India now, she's been there for most of the year. My eight-year old won a 1st place medal in track, plays the violin with beauty and accuracy, and speaks Mandarin Chinese with native accent, even though she came here at ten months of age. Her six-year-old sister from Ethiopia is not about to allow her sister to remain ahead of her at anything, but .... she's got a challenging pace-setter, so, where Lucia excels, Birtukan may be about a year behind. On the other hand, Birtukan can do stuff that Lucia can't even approach. Diversity. What an amazing blessing!
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals (i.e. Jimbo, Sebmol and Mike.lifeguard) didn't enact out-of-process global locks in defiance of community process and community consensus, it wouldn't be necessary to declare independence from their unbecoming and tyrannical practices.
Shame it didn't take too long till Jimbo was mentioned again as the cause of all your problems. I don't buy that. Is it not true that you've been blocked by a variety of users on a number of projects? As far as I can tell Jimbo was only responsible for one local block, that of you on Wikiversity and you were unblocked after that by Mu301 who then subsequently decided Jimbo's block was appropriate. Nor does it seems that Jimbo was responsible for the global lock of your account, that was done by MaxSem. Even where you haven't been blocked locally, for example on the English Wikinews, you were criticised for seemingly taking a dispute on Wikipedia there.
As I see it, the wider WMF community has made it clear that you are not welcome. At what point do you stop blaming others and start considering whether perhaps it is your own behaviour that has caused you these difficulties?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:44am)
you might suffer the likes of Abd and JWSchmidt to host constructive conversations with people like me and Greg Kohs on their own talk pages there.
The banhammer was imposed as the Wikiversity learning model in 2008. Since then, the most active Wikiversity learning project has been the sickening task of studying and documenting abuses of power at Wikiversity....there seems to be no shortage of Wikipedians who are willing to come to Wikiversity and serve as case studies. However, Jimbo stock seems to be in decline and I have to wonder how much longer abusive sysops will continue to be supported from above. It could be interesting to see which sysops have the will and the decency to reverse Jimbo's influences and set Wikiversity back on its course as an experiment in collaborative learning. I'd be glad to move past the sickening subject matter that was forced upon us in 2008 and get back to developing more interesting learning projects. I suspect that there are some Wikiversity participants who would want to continue studying the defects of Wikipedia. I wonder if those who run the Wikimedia Foundation will ever show enough maturity and interest in education to allow Wikiversity participants to engage in such studies.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:48am)
WV adopts a fairly conventional instructional model of course materials.
Conventional course materials are welcome at Wikiversity but that is only part of the Wikiversity project. The more interesting part of Wikiversity has always been active collaborative learning (wiki-based learning projects).
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:56am)
If certain individuals (i.e. Jimbo, Sebmol and Mike.lifeguard) didn't enact out-of-process global locks in defiance of community process and community consensus, it wouldn't be necessary to declare independence from their unbecoming and tyrannical practices.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:56am)
The only reason to go begging to Mike.lifeguard is to find out if he affirms or refutes my thesis that bureaucracies are incapable of correcting their past mistakes. All Greg has to do is what I normally do -- post without logging in and manually paste in a signature.
We don't go begging to admins or stewards. It is a courtesy to Mike.lifeguard to request he reverse his action, as I have done, but stewards are trustees, not governors, in spite of the beliefs of some. The WV request, assuming Mike does not respond positively, will go to the stewards request page. It won't be designed (if I file it) to cause the stewards to circle the wagons, it may not even mention Mike.lifeguard, though it will certainly point to the global block log.
Moulton, you are correct, as to the general case. Bureaucracies are not designed to correct their own mistakes at the base level. It's inefficient to go beyond a simple request to the original deciding bureaucrat, "Would you reconsider this? Thanks!" The bureaucrat needs to move on to other cases. They do, frequently, correct mistakes when there are layers of appeal, but when an appeal attacks the deciding bureaucrat instead of simply requesting review of a decision, all bureaucrats are, indeed, bureaucrats and will therefore identify with the bureaucrat rather than the appellant. If you care about the result rather than blame, never attack the bureaucrat, except if the error is so egregious that it's necessary to protect others and that is more important than the instant decision, refer the problem to others, let them challenge the bureaucrat. If you do it yourself, you will be perceived as merely disgruntled, and it all gets very difficult.
Wikipedia and the WMF, trying to avoid "bureaucracy," has created, for the most part, a single-layer bureaucracy (appeal processes are Byzantine and cumbersome), i.e., the worst kind! Where Moulton's Nth Law very frequently applies. On the other hand, many times I've found that a polite, non-blaming request to a closing admin on an issue will result in a reversal. You never know until you try.
Two cases where a simple request did not resolve the matter: JzG and WMC. JzG was admonished by ArbComm, resigned his bit, then requested it back later and has gone back to somewhat similar behavior, a result of ArbComm's penchant for not actually confronting admin abuse (but I'm not aware of actual tool abuse, it is other problematic behavior that he returned to, and his adminship is relevant because he's respected.)
WMC, of course, lost his bit.
These are the only two cases where I pursued due process. I have a case against Future Perfect at Sunrise, but ... it's not worth it to me to pursue it. I have, perhaps, done enough at WP, and I don't have sufficient support there. If someone else saw a problem with FP and was willing to go the length (which is risky!), I'd review it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
[quote name='Moulton' date='Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:48am' post='242360']I wasn't making that distinction. Either way you slice it, WV adopts a fairly conventional instructional model of course materials./quote]Wikiversity has no consistent model. It is, so far, generally tolerant of model experimentation. This is why I'd see connections with the AERO people.
I became interested in Wikiversity, personally, when I found that I could start to develop the Cold fusion resource there. In fact, the hardest part is getting skeptical participation, it won't really take off until there is some. Believe it or not, my goal is actually NPOV; but Wikiversity has no strict sourcing guidelines and opinions can be put up, and that is consistent with NPOV if the opinions are attributed and open to be balanced. Professors and students in a university seminar may generally state their (informed or uninformed) opinions and personal experiences.
So I'm generally thinking of the seminar model there, which is traditional collaborative learning. Students help each other learn, with or without the guidance of an expert. In cold fusion, I've become an "amateur expert," so I'll function that way, but not through the imposition of any authority and, of course, my adminship is irrelevant to this, though it makes it slightly more difficult to arbitrarily block me.
I offered to assist JWS to regain his admin tools. He wasn't willing to explore it. Up to him. Right now, I'd oppose it, but only because of his dedicated ... course of action that seems to depend on him being an outsider complaining instead of being an insider working on fixing the problems.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:18am)
I offered to assist JWS to regain his admin tools. He wasn't willing to explore it. Up to him. Right now, I'd oppose it, but only because of his dedicated ... course of action that seems to depend on him being an outsider complaining instead of being an insider working on fixing the problems.
I don't trust anyone who seeks admin tools. When asked, I've been willing to use the tools as part of of normal participation in wiki communities. Unlike the gang of thugs that has terrorized the Wikiversity community since 2008 I've never abused the tools that I've had as sysop, bureaucrat or checkuser. Since the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008 I find it hard to view Wikiversity as a normal wiki community. Almost all of the honest community members are gone and abusive sysops continue to strut around stroking their mighty banhammers. Some people are comfortable working with sysops who are "not too abusive", but that attitude sickens me. I'll always complain about people who abuse their power at Wikiversity and who disrupt the mission of Wikiversity. If that makes me an "outsider" in your view then have fun with that.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:36pm)
I don't trust anyone who seeks admin tools. When asked, I've been willing to use the tools as part of of normal participation in wiki communities. Unlike the gang of thugs that has terrorized the Wikiversity community since 2008 I've never abused the tools that I've had as sysop, bureaucrat or checkuser. Since the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008 I find it hard to view Wikiversity as a normal wiki community. Almost all of the honest community members are gone and abusive sysops continue to strut around stroking their mighty banhammers. Some people are comfortable working with sysops who are "not too abusive", but that attitude sickens me. I'll always complain about people who abuse their power at Wikiversity and who disrupt the mission of Wikiversity. If that makes me an "outsider" in your view then have fun with that.
Have you considered perhaps how if you are hostile towards people they might struggle not to come across hostile towards you? It works two ways surely?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:55am)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:36pm)
I don't trust anyone who seeks admin tools. When asked, I've been willing to use the tools as part of of normal participation in wiki communities. Unlike the gang of thugs that has terrorized the Wikiversity community since 2008 I've never abused the tools that I've had as sysop, bureaucrat or checkuser. Since the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008 I find it hard to view Wikiversity as a normal wiki community. Almost all of the honest community members are gone and abusive sysops continue to strut around stroking their mighty banhammers. Some people are comfortable working with sysops who are "not too abusive", but that attitude sickens me. I'll always complain about people who abuse their power at Wikiversity and who disrupt the mission of Wikiversity. If that makes me an "outsider" in your view then have fun with that.
Have you considered perhaps how if you are hostile towards people they might struggle not to come across hostile towards you? It works two ways surely?
Two points for Adambro!
(I consider John to be a very intelligent and well-meaning person, but he has a very hard time convincing people of his (valid) points because he is far too (inappropriately) aggressive in his approach).
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:34pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:48am)
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals were not blocked without just cause, evading those blocks might not be necessary.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 5:34pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:48am)
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals were not blocked without just cause, evading those blocks might not be necessary.
Perhaps you missed my earlier comments regarding Moulton's block(s). As I noted, Moulton has been blocked by many different individuals on a number of projects. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of those blocks were "without just cause". Now, specifically regarding Wikiversity, I haven't seen much in the way of calls that Moulton should be unblocked. As such, Moulton should respect the community's desire that he doesn't contribute and if he fails to do so it is right that other measures are considered.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:05pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 5:34pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:48am)
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals were not blocked without just cause, evading those blocks might not be necessary.
Perhaps you missed my earlier comments regarding Moulton's block(s). As I noted, Moulton has been blocked by many different individuals on a number of projects. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of those blocks were "without just cause". Now, specifically regarding Wikiversity, I haven't seen much in the way of calls that Moulton should be unblocked. As such, Moulton should respect the community's desire that he doesn't contribute and if he fails to do so it is right that other measures are considered.
The entertaining thing about Moulton's block was that it was a very simple story.
Moulton campaigned against an abusive group, aka the IDCabal who were smearing a group of people through their Wiki-biographies. Moulton simply would not let go, quite rightly, and used all his techniques, some of which are very annoying, to try and correct the problem. As is typical in Wikipedia, the annoying behaviour is the issue that gets dealt with rather than the initial wrong.
Moulton, having been ejected from Wikipedia, started a learning project on Wikiversity based on investigating the cultural failings of Wikipedia. Moulton's experience on Wikipedia was used as a worked example - which of course, as at the time the IDCabal were still in good standing, was an anathema to them as they viewed it as an attack (which, in many ways it was, as a continuation of the battle in another arena). As was typical, they used gorilla warfare to defeat the discussion before it got started by deleting, altering and abusing any discussion, though if I was under such public scrutiny, I would probably feel appropriate to defend myself, especially if my actions were indefensible.
So essentially the entire Moulton block is about Moulton refusing to accept abusive behaviour by other people, and Wiki politics held that his actions in defending his position were improper (well, you've been on the receiving end of his unique style of questioning, and it is understandably annoying). Since that time it has come to be accepted that his original adversaries were a bunch of unethical conniving defamers, but because of pride, nobody can believe that it is acceptable to re-instate Moulton as there mush be some unknown valid reason for the block.
Moulton has an unfortunate approach where when he is in a hole he keeps digging, and this gives people the excuse to exclude him. It is also not always clear whether he is being open and honest - he got nearly banned here at one point because he was so disruptive and annoying - a behaviour I have ascribed in my own mind either to something of a breakdown due to stress, or alternatively a use of WR as a laboratory for one his experiments.
If Wikiversity started with a clean sheet and undid all the past wrongs, drew a line, and ruled that events before say today were out of bounds due to the extenuating circumstances, then you could go forwards and discover whether the likes of Greg and Moulton could be part of a constructive learning community. My suspicion is that Moulton could, I suspect that Greg is a little too playful and could not resist using Wikiversity to continue to tweak Jimbo in some way. What is entirely wrong is the current "I do not care to understand what went on before, I simply know you are disruptive because I have been told so, and therefore I do not need to think any further" attitude which is typical of Wikipedia which you seem to subscribe to, once convicted there can be no forgiveness nor appeal.
Having said that, Wikiversity is the plaything of the WMF and it is ultimately up to them as to who they are prepared to allow. However, if they are interfering, then they need to do this openly and in a manner that is compliant with their public responsibilities.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:48pm)
What is entirely wrong is the current "I do not care to understand what went on before, I simply know you are disruptive because I have been told so, and therefore I do not need to think any further" attitude which is typical of Wikipedia which you seem to subscribe to, once convicted there can be no forgiveness nor appeal.
It is interesting to note though that you seem to accept that both Moulton and Greg have contributed to the trouble they've found themselves in. My views of both Moulton and Greg, and what makes me agree with their blocks, is not what I've heard but what I have seen myself. My first experience of Moulton was on Wikinews and I saw there how he turned up expecting to impose his views on the community and inevitably upsetting people. I've also seen how Greg has disrupted Wikiversity by making false claims of copyright violation whilst he has gone to the effort of falsifying the date of his blog posts to try use it as evidence then started a nonsense thread here (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29258) accusing me of violating copyright despite knowing it was false. It doesn't seem too unreasonable for me to consider their blocks appropriate. Why shouldn't I?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:05pm)
Perhaps you missed my earlier comments regarding Moulton's block(s). As I noted, Moulton has been blocked by many different individuals on a number of projects. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of those blocks were "without just cause". Now, specifically regarding Wikiversity, I haven't seen much in the way of calls that Moulton should be unblocked. As such, Moulton should respect the community's desire that he doesn't contribute and if he fails to do so it is right that other measures are considered.
Adambro, I'm just curious... how do you perceive my different blocks on different projects?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
I recommend dogbiscuit's insightful analysis of the situation. I've been seriously studying on-line communities since the W.E.L.L.in the 1980s, and the dysfunctional phenomena described have long existed, Wikipedia did not invent them.
(If someone complains, they are obviously the problem, get rid of them. Evidence? Who needs evidence when I can see that this person is [obviously mentally ill][disruptive][a troll]? Besides, I don't have time for this crap. Ban.)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:48pm)
[...] If Wikiversity started with a clean sheet and undid all the past wrongs, drew a line, and ruled that events before say today were out of bounds due to the extenuating circumstances, then you could go forwards and discover whether the likes of Greg and Moulton could be part of a constructive learning community. My suspicion is that Moulton could, I suspect that Greg is a little too playful and could not resist using Wikiversity to continue to tweak Jimbo in some way. What is entirely wrong is the current "I do not care to understand what went on before, I simply know you are disruptive because I have been told so, and therefore I do not need to think any further" attitude which is typical of Wikipedia which you seem to subscribe to, once convicted there can be no forgiveness nor appeal.
A common slogan among oppressed peoples is "No justice, no peace." Sometimes, that's backwards, because you can't have justice when there is no peace, because too many people will be responding from fear and will protect their own before they consider the other side. Under conditions of peace, of the ending of warfare, it becomes possible to explore redress of past wrongs. The priority must be, however, the establishment of present equity, not reparations for past losses, except as truly necessary to put people on an even keel, ongoing. It's true for Palestine/Israel, and it's true for Wikipedia/Wikiversity.
In order to undo the damage from the past, it is necessary to untangle the knots. Right now, from discussions here and on Wikiversity, I can see that the old grudges and disputes are being held to,fiercely, by some. On both sides, though reducing the situation to "sides" is an oversimplification. People are far more complicated than that.
It is not possible, however, in my opinion, to immediately "resolve" the overall "dispute" or "battle." The first step, in my view, is to start to explore possibilities of cooperation, perhaps in narrow areas. The study of wikihistory is very important for the future of the wiki idea and practice. It is essential to know what went wrong and how, not to blame and punish -- those habits are, in fact, part of what went awry -- but to create ways to improve and avoid repeating the same mistakes.
When people have been personally hurt, however, they may attempt to use the process of examination to gain revenge, and this, then, converts the necessary inquiry into one more skirmish in a long battle. I do not blame people, then, for wanting to shut this down.
So cooperation might not begin with "wikistudies" that involve histories of personal interactions, unless that is done outside, on independent wikis, but still following sound ethical guidelines.
Moulton's global lock, like that of Thekohser, might well be lifted as an early step, allowing each wiki to make its own decisions. Diversity is the friend of freedom and depth; uniformity has some value, but it can also reduce the collective to the lowest common denominator and the mechanisms of uniformity are those that allow the natural oligarchies to obtain excess and inequitable power. The SUL system became a way of centrally controlling access, and if steward intervention is required to locally undo a global lock -- as can be done by any admin with the global blacklist, through the local whitelist -- what may be seen as a convenience becomes a domination.
If admins can turn off the operation of a global block, global block would return to being simply a convenience of a kind, still possible to abuse, but, then, in keeping with wiki traditions, relatively easy to turn off locally. But I think it might take a bureaucrat or steward, I haven't found out yet.
QUOTE
Having said that, Wikiversity is the plaything of the WMF and it is ultimately up to them as to who they are prepared to allow. However, if they are interfering, then they need to do this openly and in a manner that is compliant with their public responsibilities.
In March, I began emphasizing the right of the WMF Board and their agents to make global decisions. I firmly affirm the Board's right -- and responsibility -- to do this. However, the actual communities of editors who make WMF wikis possible are not controlled and should not be controlled by the WMF, it must be a voluntary relationship of cooperation to work, long term. The biggest problem I see is that the community is not organized, generally, to be able to make coherent decisions except through the defective mechanisms provided only through the wiki itself, which then makes the members of the community, in effect, subservient to, excludable by, the WMF and whatever power structure has been created, when, in theory, what restrains the power structure is the distributed and inalienable power of the community.
As the students found at Tiananmen Square, it may be possible to get the attention of the central bureaucrats, but if you are not prepared to negotiate collectively with them, and to collectively take responsibility for enforcing, among your own, the collective decisions, the bureaucrats will realize that there is nobody to negotiate with and they will abandon negotiation and take their own actions. In China, that involved sending in a division of the Red Army that did not speak the local language.... outsiders.
I may propose that WMF communities elect a "governor," who would be the liason with the WMF, providing that the WMF accepts the election. It's a governor in the sense that this person would be a steward, at least. The election process, by the way, could be continuous, with a procedure for immediate removal of tools though an efficient recall process. It's possible to set it up so that sustained abuse would be very difficult. But one step at a time! So if there was some question of "cross-wiki issues" that might require local action, this would be the person to make those decisions, thus setting up cooperation between the local wiki and the WMF. The power of such a person could be carefully restrained. While the person would have blocking tools, they would only be used in an emergency, this person would *not* declare a ban, but only a protective block pending negotiation of some ongoing solution. It's really standard executive power. (The POTUS cannot imprison or punish, in theory, except temporarily, pending judicial process.)
(Election process I'd suggest would be Asset Voting, which, in theory and practice, what little exists, creates distributed power that voluntarily coalesces on a decision through standard negotiation process. Extremely simple and extremely powerful.)
Fixing the wikis will take new structures and habits. It will probably take off-wiki structure, which is not vulnerable to disruption and interdiction. WR is a piece of this solution, but it is not designed for the clear discovery and negotiation of consensus. Nevertheless, that multiple independent fora exist is crucial. I see many simple initiatives possible that will move the community toward far better realization of the original ideals, those ideals that attracted so many and then left them disappointed when they faced the reality of ad-hoc wiki structure when the scale became large.
As to Wikiversity, I highly encourage those who left out of disgust, or just being worn out, on all sides, to start to connect. Together, you cannot be broken and excluded. As one or just a few isolated rebels, or just burned out admins, for example, you can do nothing against the entrenched mob. However, even one or two dozen editors and a few admins held off the entire community for years, and are only now finding their power deconstructed, dismantled, and challenged effectively. I was, and continue to be, a piece of that change. I'm not blocked at the moment, but I'm prohibited from engaging on-wiki (i.e., on Wikipedia). So what? I will if I see it as necessary and worth the cost, but right now, I see that insisting on on-wiki exposure of the situation, even when arguably legitimate, is ineffective. Others are doing it anyway, and from time to time I can be of assistance.
Instead of complaining about ops in some WMF-controlled IRC channel, for example, set up your own channels and mailing lists. Mailing lists are ideal, actually, because of the flexibility, simplicity, freedom from cost other than maintenance, and the push character of email.
netknowledge.org may be an excellent alternative to Wikiversity, and alternative universities are crucial to academic freedom. If the alternatives can cooperate, they can enhance each other, but cooperation must remain voluntary, not coerced in any way.
Indeed, this possibility that some faction will organize off-wiki had ArbComm so terrified last year that they banned one of the finest and most cautious and cooperative of the admins, Piotrus, because of his involvement with the Eastern European Mailing List. As an "example," to discourage others from doing this. Ah, how far ArbComm has fallen from the original concepts and community, which would have immediately recognized the problems with "exemplary punishment." Starting with it not working.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:05pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 5:34pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:48am)
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals were not blocked without just cause, evading those blocks might not be necessary.
Perhaps you missed my earlier comments regarding Moulton's block(s). As I noted, Moulton has been blocked by many different individuals on a number of projects. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of those blocks were "without just cause". Now, specifically regarding Wikiversity, I haven't seen much in the way of calls that Moulton should be unblocked. As such, Moulton should respect the community's desire that he doesn't contribute and if he fails to do so it is right that other measures are considered.
I have nothing to add to dogbiscuit's excellent analysis as to the legitimacy of Moulton's blocks.
You came to the game long after the battle lines had been drawn, and you (being a good soldier in the WikiForce) have merely followed your superior's orders (even if you don't realize it as such). What some of us, at least, would like for you and others like you to do is to take a step back and contemplate whether your "orders" make sense. That is, are the policies that you enforce really in the best interests of the project you are supposedly advancing? If they are not, why do you continue to enforce them?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:20pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 7:17pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:31am)
We'll be watching this page for that magical "Newer edit" to appear.
Looks like Mike.lifeguard is having an awesome Independence Day holiday weekend.
Adambro, you might help matters if you also comment on Mike's talk page about your new-found support of my having Talk page rights restored.
I'll leave it to Abd, I'm not clear as to what it would involve.
I don't know if it would help. Maybe, depends on whether or not Mike has any developed sense of respect for your opinion. I would suggest that you take a look at that request and see if there is anything useful to add. Or not.
I think, though, for now, your strikeout of your previous opposition is spectacular. This kind of reversal of position is a quite clear sign of consensus formation, and there are stewards sophisticated enough to recognize this right away. I say we wait a few days and see what happens. This phase of dealing with the issue may end with hardly any flap.
Greg, please be patient. This is just the first step, but it is a crucial step, not really about you, personally, but about the right of local self-determination. That's worth the fuss, and it's a victory for wiki process whether or not you end up unblocked. I can thank you already for raising the issue, and I will argue, if necessary, that the circumstances required this little "block evasion." After all, the edits themselves were not disruptive at all. If nothing had been done with them, no problem. However, they elicited the suggestion that you should be editing using your regular account. Greg, always notice wedges that will bring people together with agreement. That was a wedge of this kind, and the irony that the one suggesting it was the one who blocked you from editing your Talk page is a little secret joke, eh?
He is, in fact, being very helpful here. Let's notice and acknowledge that.
As to Mike.lifeguard, the request to him is a courtesy, allowing him to graciously reconsider. If he changes the lock, I will personally thank him. If he doesn't, the appeal will hardly even mention him. This is not about him.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:37pm)
You came to the game long after the battle lines had been drawn, and you (being a good soldier in the WikiForce) have merely followed your superior's orders (even if you don't realize it as such). What some of us, at least, would like for you and others like you to do is to take a step back and contemplate whether your "orders" make sense. That is, are the policies that you enforce really in the best interests of the project you are supposedly advancing? If they are not, why do you continue to enforce them?
You are right, my earliest experiences of both Moulton and thekohser are from a point in time at which they'd already run into trouble. Do you understand based upon what I've said a why I consider the blocks to be appropriate? Perhaps if I'd seen Moulton and thekohser before they started finding themselves in conflicts with others on WMF projects I'd think differently about them? Is that your suggestion? Or perhaps you're suggesting that the concerns that I have don't justify these blocks? I'm not clear what the point you're trying to make here is.
Taking thekohser as an example and recalling the copyright violation incident I highlighted, was it better for the project that thekohser was blocked to prevent further disruption or that he was allowed to continue?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:59pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 9:37pm)
You came to the game long after the battle lines had been drawn, and you (being a good soldier in the WikiForce) have merely followed your superior's orders (even if you don't realize it as such). What some of us, at least, would like for you and others like you to do is to take a step back and contemplate whether your "orders" make sense. That is, are the policies that you enforce really in the best interests of the project you are supposedly advancing? If they are not, why do you continue to enforce them?
You are right, my earliest experiences of both Moulton and thekohser are from a point in time at which they'd already run into trouble. Do you understand based upon what I've said a why I consider the blocks to be appropriate? Perhaps if I'd seen Moulton and thekohser before they started finding themselves in conflicts with others on WMF projects I'd think differently about them? Is that your suggestion? Or perhaps you're suggesting that the concerns that I have don't justify these blocks? I'm not clear what the point you're trying to make here is.
Taking thekohser as an example and recalling the copyright violation incident I highlighted, was it better for the project that thekohser was blocked to prevent further disruption or that he was allowed to continue?
Adam, both of them are blocked because they ran afoul of Jimmy in a personal way. There's a (fairly recent) thread here somewhere about Greg's block, no time to look it up now but I'm sure someone will provide a link.
Moulton's block was arranged behind the scenes, but I assure you, it was mostly a manner of running afoul of Jimmy.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 3:59pm)
You are right, my earliest experiences of both Moulton and thekohser are from a point in time at which they'd already run into trouble. Do you understand based upon what I've said a why I consider the blocks to be appropriate?
Trouble had run into them. Both of them were forced into trouble by high-ranking individuals in the Wikipedia universe, in Greg's case by Jimmy himself and in Moulton's case by a collective that seeks to control the content of articles related to global warming. Greg was grossly mistreated by Jimmy and all of Greg's subsequent actions are fairly clearly in reaction to Jimmy's horribly unethical treatment of Greg. Moulton's case I am less familiar with, but I think it's fairly clear that Moulton has been treated with unethically as well.
Is it not unethical on your part to further aid and abet a prior unethical act? I think you can ethically do nothing with respect to either Greg or Moulton, but I think it's unethical for you to actively interfere with their ongoing efforts to obtain justice. That you do exactly that suggests that you, like your revered Leader, lack a moral compass.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:08pm)
Adam, both of them are blocked because they ran afoul of Jimmy in a personal way. There's a (fairly recent) thread here somewhere about Greg's block, no time to look it up now but I'm sure someone will provide a link.
Moulton's block was arranged behind the scenes, but I assure you, it was mostly a manner of running afoul of Jimmy.
Greg may have been blocked by Jimbo but remains blocked because, as the incident I highlighted shows, the block is appropriate to prevent disruption to Wikiversity.
As for Moulton, just days before Jimbo blocked him indef you yourself had blocked him for a short period for "intentionally being offensive". Clearly that wasn't because Moulton "ran afoul of Jimmy in a personal way" nor was it "arranged behind the scenes", it was because you felt his behaviour wasn't appropriate. In that context it seems surprising you seem so critical of Moulton's block particularly since the current block of Moulton isn't by Jimbo but Mu301. You're block demonstrates that you felt he was behaving inappropriately around that period and so it doesn't seem to unrealistic to think that behaviour may have persisted and prompted the Jimbo/Mu301 block.
Where are the flaws in the blocks of Moulton and Greg?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:36pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 3:59pm)
You are right, my earliest experiences of both Moulton and thekohser are from a point in time at which they'd already run into trouble. Do you understand based upon what I've said a why I consider the blocks to be appropriate?
Trouble had run into them. Both of them were forced into trouble by high-ranking individuals in the Wikipedia universe, in Greg's case by Jimmy himself and in Moulton's case by a collective that seeks to control the content of articles related to global warming. Greg was grossly mistreated by Jimmy and all of Greg's subsequent actions are fairly clearly in reaction to Jimmy's horribly unethical treatment of Greg. Moulton's case I am less familiar with, but I think it's fairly clear that Moulton has been treated with unethically as well.
Is it not unethical on your part to further aid and abet a prior unethical act? I think you can ethically do nothing with respect to either Greg or Moulton, but I think it's unethical for you to actively interfere with their ongoing efforts to obtain justice. That you do exactly that suggests that you, like your revered Leader, lack a moral compass.
Two wrongs don't make a right though do they? Sure, both Moulton and Greg may have at some point been treated improperly by Jimbo et al but does that mean I should stand aside whilst they use Wikiversity to try to get back at Jimbo? Does that mean I and the Wikiversity community in general should tolerate completely false accusations of copyright violation? I'd suggest not. I don't wish to stand in the way of justice but disrupting Wikiversity I don't wish to allow. I know which category Greg's copyright violation claims would fall in to.
As I've said on Wikiversity, I support Abd's proposal that we might actually be able to see what Greg has to say regarding this situation on his talk page. It remains to be seen what if anything will come of that but it is the most appropriate course of action that I can see at the moment if Greg does truly wish to contribute usefully to the project.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:38am)
Adam and Abd, I'm off to the Museum of Science for the rest of the day, so I'll respond to the above two lengthy posts later tonight.
Well, I'm home from the Museum of Science now, but so much new material has been posted all day that I will have to digest it before figuring out what still needs to be said.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:59pm)
Taking thekohser as an example and recalling the copyright violation incident I highlighted, was it better for the project that thekohser was blocked to prevent further disruption or that he was allowed to continue?
When did that incident occur?
What had transpired against me in the days leading up to that incident?
I hope you understand the nature of "cause" and "effect".
Shame it didn't take too long till Jimbo was mentioned again as the cause of all your problems. I don't buy that.
Nor am I selling it. The cause of the problems I encountered was a fundamental lack of ethics in the practices of the editors I ran into (initially the editors of the IDCabal and their allies). What mystified me was the utter absence of any discernible ethical standards at the Wikipedia or WikiNews. But more about that later.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
Is it not true that you've been blocked by a variety of users on a number of projects?
I was initially blocked (on Wikipedia) by the allied editors of the IDCabal, who acted without consulting the community.
I was blocked on Wikiversity by a (back-channel) directive from Jimbo, who had gone there to protect the IDCabal editors whose ethical lapses were coming under review.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
As far as I can tell Jimbo was only responsible for one local block, that of you on Wikiversity and you were unblocked after that by Mu301 who then subsequently decided Jimbo's block was appropriate. Nor does it seems that Jimbo was responsible for the global lock of your account, that was done by MaxSem. Even where you haven't been blocked locally, for example on the English Wikinews, you were criticised for seemingly taking a dispute on Wikipedia there.
I'm pretty sure MaxSem (whose name appears nowhere else in my history at any WMF-sponsored site) was acting expressly at Jimbo's direction. Recall that Jimbo personally threated to globally site-ban me over a song parody that I had posted on my (otherwise entirely obscure) personal blog.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
As I see it, the wider WMF community has made it clear that you are not welcome.
In the original block at WP, the community wasn't even consulted. In a later protracted discussion, the wider community was divided and deadlocked over whether to rescind and reverse the unjust actions of the IDCabal editors.
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:36am)
It could be interesting to see which sysops have the will and the decency to reverse Jimbo's influences and set Wikiversity back on its course as an experiment in collaborative learning.
Right now, only Ottava, Abd, and Adambro have looked into the question. And so far, only one of them has made up his mind. Curiously enough, it's the WV custodian with the least familiarity with the litany of past abuses (of which my case is but one of many).
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:50am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:56am)
If certain individuals (i.e. Jimbo, Sebmol and Mike.lifeguard) didn't enact out-of-process global locks in defiance of community process and community consensus, it wouldn't be necessary to declare independence from their unbecoming and tyrannical practices.
Thank you. I keep mixing up those two names, as I have never had any interaction with either of them. Their names are just empty handles for me.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:18am)
I'm generally thinking of the seminar model there [at WV], which is traditional collaborative learning.
And the only reason I need any editing privileges there at all is to offer an occasional bit of help to individuals like you, Geoff Plourde, JWSchmidt, or PrivateMusings when any of you are engaged in a project that employs a seminar model or collaborative learning model. I don't even need to have an unlocked SUL. I am content to edit as an IP and manually sign my edits, as I am no longer interested in contributing any primary source material there.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:53pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:34pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:48am)
If certain individuals didn't attempt to evade blocks that might not be necessary.
If certain individuals were not blocked without just cause, evading those blocks might not be necessary.
Touchdown for Kelly!
Adam may not be aware of this, but three respected Wikipedians (Lar, Sam Korn, and GRBerry) all conceded that I was not afforded due process when the editors of IDCab blocked me some three years ago. Eventually others who looked into the case concluded that there was no just cause at all. I was blocked because I was exposing the corrupt practices of IDCab and their allies.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:48pm)
So essentially the entire Moulton block is about Moulton refusing to accept abusive behaviour by other people, and Wiki politics held that his actions in defending his position were improper (well, you've been on the receiving end of his unique style of questioning, and it is understandably annoying). Since that time it has come to be accepted that his original adversaries were a bunch of unethical conniving defamers, but because of pride, nobody can believe that it is acceptable to re-instate Moulton as there must be some unknown valid reason for the block.
Precisely. Because the blocking admins had consistently failed to post a valid reason, I kept asking people (like JWSchmidt, for example) to help me understand what my transgression was. John was among the first (but by no means the only) person to conclude that there was no valid reason. I was blocked by a cadre of corrupt admins because I was exposing their corrupt practices, full stop.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:11pm)
My first experience of Moulton was on Wikinews and I saw there how he turned up expecting to impose his views on the community and inevitably upsetting people
I upset Brian McNeil because I had the temerity to suggest that WikiNews (along with a few other WMF-sponsored sites) could benefit from the exercise of crafting a Code of Ethics. McNeil's attitude was, "Ethics? We don't need no steenkin' ethics." And I'm sure you are aware of the recent fiasco at WikiNews when Brian demonstrated his lack of ethics in the case involving Mathew Edwards.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 3:04pm)
A common slogan among oppressed peoples is "No justice, no peace."
The version that I recite is, "If you want peace, work for justice."
Curiously enough, Adambro has twice reverted that comment (when I posted it for my colleague, Geoff Plourde).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:59pm)
Taking thekohser as an example and recalling the copyright violation incident I highlighted, was it better for the project that thekohser was blocked to prevent further disruption or that he was allowed to continue?
There is a vast difference between temporarily blocking a user to prevent some immediate hazard (though copyright violation is vastly over-rated as a risk to the project) and effectively banning an editor without going through careful community review.
As an administrator, you are charged with the responsibility of preventing disruption and damage, and you have discretion in how you do this. You do not need to be perfect, as long as your actions are temporary in nature, subject to review. What I'd hope from you now, it seems you are willing to grant: allowing a review of the present situation, with a de novo consideration of the hazards. That an editor did something months or years ago is not necessarily a reliable guide as to what they would do now, and bans can create serious problems of their own.
Once a user is banned, the user has no more motive to cooperate at all, and, frankly, it is impossible to prevent a user of even minimal sophisticated from being disruptive. Good administration never places itself as the "boss" of a user, unless the user accepts this position voluntarily (and the admin is willing to take that on!)
It's perfectly appropriate to ask a user what their intentions would be, ongoing, with regard to similar situations arising in the future. What is definitely inappropriate, though, is the same admin first blocking, then denying unblock. It's probably best, in fact, that admins clearly state their reasons for a block, and then, except to unblock if that seems wise, let it go. When an admin argues strongly for their action, it starts to look like bias and personal agenda, which is damaging even if it is only an appearance.
Rather, I generally point to the example of Iridescent, who indef blocked me in 2008. She did it exactly right, I've described this many times. She believed I was harassing Fritzpoll, who appeared to be ready to resign in distress over "having to respond" to my tomes (which were on my talk page!). Complicated story, and she was incorrect, from a policy POV, but so what? She blocked me and wrote "'indef' as with 'until review,' not as in 'infinite.'" And then she recused herself from further consideration, after providing some diffs to show what she considered harassment. As a result, I was not staring at her as some kind of enemy, but rather at the community. If I wanted to edit, I'd have to convince an admin to unblock me. I waited, in fact, a few days, to see what would happen. Nothing happened, really, except a little tiff with Jehochman who ultimately backed off, and I think it is diagnostic of my long-term "agenda" at Wikipedia that Jehochman and Fritzpoll became strong allies of mine and Iridescent has become, shall we say, a bit deeper in her consideration of the issues. We agree on a lot, but I think she is more pessimistic than I about Wikipedia, long-term. That pessimism is common with many long-time contributors, it should really have the WMF worried, if the Board is paying attention.
Iridescent's action might have created some issue with some editors, who believe that nobody should dare question or interrupt their right to edit. Now, how stupid it would have been for me to embark on a crusade against Iridescent's "stupid" block? In fact, she did exactly what she was supposed to do, act to protect the wiki and editors, based on her understanding. So what if she misjudged the situation? It was, in fact, easy to fix. I did put up an unblock template eventually, it was denied, probably because of insufficient displayed remorse for being such a bad guy, and, once the denial happened, others who had been watching and waiting showed up to comment and one unblocked, because it had become obvious that it was serving no good purpose. I didn't even have to ask. If I had started railing against Iridescent, I'd still be staring at an indef block, I suspect. Or worse.
I had some good mentors early on, most notably an editor known by many names, a long-term Wikipedian who, for his own reasons, kept dropping accounts and starting up new ones, though under (originally) no sanctions. He never used two accounts simultaneously, never went back to old accounts, and all were acknowledged or blatantly obvious, far from concealed. One of the names was Sarsaparilla, it's not hard at all to find another going back about two years before I met him. Older accounts he never revealed even to me, and he had real-life reasons to avoid disclosing them, he claimed.
He'd pull some stunt and it always taught me a great deal about how the wiki worked and how editors responded. Call it "response testing," it was a fast education. It was never destructive or mean, but he did get people riled up, mostly after he learned about my delegable proxy concepts, which he ran with, and something seemed to break in him when it was insanely rejected without being -- at all -- understood.... and that's when he started getting blocked. When he was actually trying to do something about the obvious problems.
Wikipedia has blocked and banned some of the brightest and best of its contributors, often after years of dedicated service, sometimes quickly because some influential editor's agenda was impacted.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 5:47pm)
Where are the flaws in the blocks of Moulton and Greg?
They were out-of-process, without community participation, without due process, without just cause, and (in some cases) manipulated behind the scenes by Jimbo and (in some cases) with his express threat to shut down Wikiversity if they didn't go along with his dictates. The most recent intervention at Wikiversity repeated that pattern so atrociously that it utterly sundered the community.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 5:08pm)
Adam, both of them are blocked because they ran afoul of Jimmy in a personal way. There's a (fairly recent) thread here somewhere about Greg's block, no time to look it up now but I'm sure someone will provide a link.
Moulton's block was arranged behind the scenes, but I assure you, it was mostly a manner of running afoul of Jimmy.
The man is probably right, Adambro. Where I might differ from some here is that I don't particularly blame Jimbo for doing what he did. He ended up in a position that was, long-term, unstable, and I really don't think he understood -- or understands -- quite how to get out of that position, though it has largely passed from him. It is no longer possible to sensibly blame Wikipedia's problems directly on Jimbo.
(It requires a vision of secret string-pulling, which, while I suppose it's possible, and may even occasionally occur recently as it did in the past, can affect such a small fraction of what goes on with the projects that it's preposterous to focus on it. I rather doubt that Jimbo is even aware of the May 30 global lock of Thekohser, even less do I think it likely it was requested. If it was, well, too bad, but it doesn't matter. In my opinion, Jimbo is largely irrelevant now as an active force, except as his public image remains positive and he can, sometimes, get some good things done. I believe he is open to suggestions, but I have not actually tested this much, I've not leaned on the connections I have made with him. I won't ask him for assistance unless I think it is clearly worth his time. In the end, appealing to him would be an admission that the whole project is doomed, if his interference would be the only rescue.)
If I'm truly banned, which seems very unlikely at this point, I'd give him a debriefing, and he could do with it what he chooses. He's free to ask me questions at any time, of course! As is anyone.
Then I decide if I have any further work to do .... I do know that in many ways, I'd be freer banned than I am now, on Wikipedia. I could edit Cold fusion, for example, no problem. I'd even sign my edits.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 5:47pm)
Where are the flaws in the blocks of Moulton and Greg?
They were out-of-process, without community participation, without due process, without just cause, and (in some cases) manipulated behind the scenes by Jimbo and (in some cases) with his express threat to shut down Wikiversity if they didn't go along with his dictates. The most recent intervention at Wikiversity repeated that pattern so atrociously that it utterly sundered the community.
Adambro, the man is basically right here. Now, that doesn't automatically equal "unblock." What it does mean is that we should be very careful about assuming that a blocked editor "deserved" to be blocked. And that the editor should apologize for their alleged sins.
There is no doubt but that Moulton and Thekohser can be irritating. They know it. I'll let them say whether or not they enjoy it or find it frustrating. I can certainly be irritating, I'll say, and I have a mixed relationship with it. It's often frustrating, because irritating people is not my general goal. But sometimes it is, sometimes people have done so much that has damaged others, in blatantly offensive ways, that I take some pleasure in their irritation. It's a human response, and if I'm anything, I'm human.
Adambro, I've seen at least one, maybe a few, administrative errors of yours (in my opinion). None are serious enough to warrant any kind of serious action other than suggesting to you that there was an error. Blocking Greg's access to his Talk page seemed a bit extreme, but may have been moot in the end. If you were going to do something like that, don't you think you should have explained it? You didn't. But so what? It is just as much of an error to demand that administrators always do the "right thing" as it is to demand that of ordinary editors. Adminship, indeed, should be "no big deal." Unless, of course, it is, which is what happens when an administrator insists on using his tools to implement his own opinions without making sure that this is supported by consensus (rather than merely by lack of attention).
The important thing here is that when I reversed that Talk page block, you knew about it, and did not object, and certainly did not wheel-war over it.... what is important is that we are now discussing the opening up of that Talk page on the Colloquium, and, so far, fingers crossed, there is consensus to proceed.
I strongly disagree with attempts to portray you as some kind of tool of Jimbo. I just don't see that, and, even if I did, you know what? I wouldn't say it, comments like that do no good whatever in terms of helping people to collaborate, they are only useful in outside polemic trying to get people fired up, and most people sensibly realize that it's Not Worth It.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
In case it wasn't clear from the E-mail that Jimbo sent me, one or more of the editors from the IDCabal asked him to intervene on their behalf with respect to the song parodies on my blog in which I had lampooned them.
I don't know which of the IDCabal editors contacted Jimbo, but I'm guessing it was probably FeloniousMonk or KillerChihuahua.
When Jimbo's bullying tactics backfired, he followed through on his threat and had my account globally locked.
Note that those same bullying tactics have surfaced in other comparable cases coming before ArbCom. I think it's fair to say that the corrupt practices which I ran into with IDCabal permeated the central power structure, all the way up to Jimbo himself.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:55am)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:36pm)
I'll always complain about people who abuse their power at Wikiversity
Have you considered perhaps how if you are hostile towards people they might struggle not to come across hostile towards you? It works two ways surely?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say about hostility. I'm from a culture where problems are corrected by first pointing to the problems.
I think it is a normal healthy part of wiki participation to object when sysops and other people with special responsibilities abuse their power. One of the major symptoms of "Wikipedia Disease" is sysops who believe that they have the right to use vandalism fighting tools against good faith wiki participants. Such abusive sysops are usually experts at gaming the system. They routinely view objections to their abusive behavior as an "attack" or "hostility".
Since the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008 there has been a sad cycle of abusive sysop actions followed by more abuse while the abusive sysops try to prevent anyone from objecting to their abuses. I object to all such abusive practices and I expect the abusers to continue abusing me as a "reward" for my objections.
Since 2008 the gang of thugs who took control of Wikiversity have destroyed the community of honest wiki participants. I can't look kindly upon the pathetic behavior of these thugs and I don't care if they take their frustrations out on me. In my experience, abusive sysops continue their abuses until they 1) get bored playing the "wiki cop" MMORPG, 2) they get a job or 3) the community takes away their tools. It is a sad fact of wiki participation that some time must be devoted to getting rid of abusive sysops. It is sickening to have to interact with these people, but I'm willing to spend some of my online time doing it.
Yes. You found it. You'll never guess what it is unless you read more than a little. Turns out that the eyes are only one kind of access to whatever happens with bilateral processing of memories. Original application was with post-traumatic stress disorder, where it was found to be more effective than any other technique, often making dramatic changes in one two-hour session after a bit of preparation, i.e., interviews. I did a longer course, dealing with stuff that was mostly pre-conscious memory, though I had bits and pieces. Knowingly repressed for about sixty years.
Now, deep trauma, possible psychopathology (what, me?), and personal suggestions aside, to the point here:
QUOTE
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
Shame it didn't take too long till Jimbo was mentioned again as the cause of all your problems. I don't buy that.
Nor am I selling it. The cause of the problems I encountered was a fundamental lack of ethics in the practices of the editors I ran into (initially the editors of the IDCabal and their allies). What mystified me was the utter absence of any discernible ethical standards at the Wikipedia or WikiNews. But more about that later.
Adambro, you are repeating an old myth or knee-jerk reaction. If someone, for example, complains about a cabal, they must be nuts, since we all know WP:TINC. For some reason, that's the essay people always read, forgetting about TIAC and the fact that Jimbo, when he set up adminship, called it the "administrative cabal."
When I pointed out a blatant and obvious cabal, practically every experienced WR'er knew about it, before ArbComm and made it clear that my assertion of "cabal membership" was not a charge of misconduct, nor did it imply impermissible coordination, only a collective bias represented through mutual support, I called it "mutual involvement," ArbComm proceeded to ding me for "not presenting evidence of misconduct," demonstrating to me that they hadn't actually read what I'd written. Common problem, actually. That same cabal had been called a "cabal" in media sources, and is now under examination before ArbComm again, because, of course, they didn't start nor did they stop with harassing me. Nor was WMC, desysopped for blocking me, by any means the most egregious of cabal members, he was actually one of the nicer ones. To some, anyway.
Is Jimbo the cause of "all" of Moulton's "problems?" Pay attention, Adambro, there are people writing here who are three times your age, and who have been active on-line for longer, I think, than you have been alive. You can learn something from these people if you allow yourself.
Jimbo may or may not have made significant contributions to the harassment of Moulton. But the "problem" is not Moulton's. Do you think he suffers in his life because of "loss" of the ability to edit the projects? No, it is our problem. Moulton, with all his irritating habits, is one of the most cogent of Wikipedia critics. We need people like that. Even if we might need to keep them in a bit of a cage sometimes. (I'm also talking about myself. If I offend the community, it has a perfect right to restrict me. But it bans me to its own loss. Not mine. I probably gain personally from every day I'm blocked. And the same is true for many others.)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
Is it not true that you've been blocked by a variety of users on a number of projects?
And that proves?
First of all, there are plenty of admins who will block just because their friend blocked. I saw this happen with MastCell and JzG. JzG had blocked (entirely contrary to recusal policy, as later found by ArbComm) the IP of Jed Rothwell, a writer and expert (not a scientist, but someone intimately familiar with the literature) on Cold fusion. Long story short, for no immediate offense at all, but because it had arisen that the alleged ban on Jed Rothwell existed without the actual Jed Rothwell account every having been blocked, MastCell blocked Jed Rothwell. And wrote that if JzG needed any other assistance, just ask....
Many times I've seen an abusive or unnecessary block, and another admin comes along and denies the unblock request with no apparent clue other than the blocking admin being considered reputable, and many consider all admins reputable, after all, weren't they all accepted with 75% or so approval?
Yeah, but that was then and this is now. Every time there is a proposal for review of adminship, the cry goes up that admins would be unpopular because they have taken unpopular actions, and so they must be protected against review. Isn't that, then, a bit contradictory? JzG had basically burned out, and was doing stuff, regularly, that would have gotten any ordinary editor immediately blocked. But here other admins were still supporting him and carrying water for him.
This is the kind of stuff that Moulton and Thekohser ran into. Once one has offended a single admin, it can snowball. In my case, old situations were trotted out as examples of how disruptive I was. In fact, those situations had been resolved. The best example was the block by Iridescent due to my alleged harassment of Fritzpoll. Unnoticed was the fact that Fritzpoll, who later wrote me that the whole thing had been a misunderstanding, had then suggested I accept the rollback privilege and had given me that bit, and then, when there were dozens of editors and a number of admins (fine upstanding folk like Raul654) were screaming for me to be banned, Fritzpoll offered to mentor me, officially. Fritzpoll also told me that my situation inspired him to run for ArbComm.... he also said that he expected to be banned in short order. Well, he wasn't banned, I think they just sucked the energy out of him.... he realized how difficult it was to move the beast. They told him that an arb could not mentor an editor. Really? Why not? Where is that rule? He was already recusing when anything came up about me. So were two other very friendly arbs. Weird, eh? The arbs who understood what I was doing were all recusing....
QUOTE
I was initially blocked (on Wikipedia) by the allied editors of the IDCabal, who acted without consulting the community.
I was blocked on Wikiversity by a (back-channel) directive from Jimbo, who had gone there to protect the IDCabal editors whose ethical lapses were coming under review.
Adambro, this seems like a pretty sober account. Jimbo made mistakes, some serious ones, trusting the wrong people. It's not just Moulton, there were others.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
As far as I can tell Jimbo was only responsible for one local block, that of you on Wikiversity and you were unblocked after that by Mu301 who then subsequently decided Jimbo's block was appropriate. Nor does it seems that Jimbo was responsible for the global lock of your account, that was done by MaxSem. Even where you haven't been blocked locally, for example on the English Wikinews, you were criticised for seemingly taking a dispute on Wikipedia there.
I'm pretty sure MaxSem (whose name appears nowhere else in my history at any WMF-sponsored site) was acting expressly at Jimbo's direction. Recall that Jimbo personally threated to globally site-ban me over a song parody that I had posted on my (otherwise entirely obscure) personal blog.
To add a sequel to this, MaxSem !voted to remove the Founder flag from Jimbo in the recent RfC at meta, begun over the events at Wikiversity, which included the block of Thekohser. If you look at the blocks of Thekohser in the global account reports, you will see that almost all of them were based on the request from Jimbo.
The situation of Moulton is complex. I believe that the WMF community needs to develop means of allowing and even encouraging criticism, without allowing it to become disruptive. This requires several different kinds of protection, but, classically, admins take up the bit knowing, supposedly, that they will be criticized, often severely. Good admins know how to defuse this. Jimbo did not set a good example, unfortunately, allowing himself to become personally committed to positions. Gradually, through a series of flaps, he began to abstract himself, but recent events have shown that he's not home free yet. I've seen Jimbo, by the way, take actions that were probably long overdue. He briefly blocked a certain very popular admin for incivility. The incivility was utterly inappropriate. Why should any admin be exempt from being treated the same as other editors? I can answer that, there are reasons. But they are quite dangerous ones....
QUOTE
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:19am)
As I see it, the wider WMF community has made it clear that you are not welcome.
You are presuming uniformity in the community, Adambro. In fact, the community has no mechanisms for becoming "clear." The way Moulton was treated badly fractured the community, and many of those who supported him simply left. I remember an article in Time magazine, when the U.S. was still in South Vietnam, that noted that when the U.S. involvement had started there, probably the majority of people supported the Viet Cong, but, now so many people had been killed in the war or had fled that most people now didn't support them. Therefore the revolution was unpopular and undemocratic, and to support democracy, the U.S. should stay in Vietnam. The brilliance of that logic wasn't lost on me....
QUOTE
In the original block at WP, the community wasn't even consulted. In a later protracted discussion, the wider community was divided and deadlocked over whether to rescind and reverse the unjust actions of the IDCabal editors.
I've found, reviewing many old ban decisions, that there was, in fact, no consensus, but one was declared anyway. If you look at WP:BAN now, if it hasn't been yanked, that a ban consensus is supposed to be of "uninvolved editors," but I have yet to see any ban closer who considers involvement at all. And I've done quite a few analyses that showed that what was really going on was that an involved faction piled in and created an appearance of consensus, and an admin who doesn't realize that factions exist -- which takes more familiarity with an area than most admins can muster -- will just look at the numbers and will assume that so many arguments presented by so many different editors must be valid.
And many blocks of people like Moulton aren't even discussed at all. If you don't realize that this happens, Adambro, you don't understand Wikipedia and the wikis in general, and therefore will have difficulty being part of the solutions. You can presume almost nothing from the multiplicity of blocks, given what I've seen.
QUOTE
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:36am)
It could be interesting to see which sysops have the will and the decency to reverse Jimbo's influences and set Wikiversity back on its course as an experiment in collaborative learning.
Right now, only Ottava, Abd, and Adambro have looked into the question. And so far, only one of them has made up his mind. Curiously enough, it's the WV custodian with the least familiarity with the litany of past abuses (of which my case is but one of many).
Who has made up his mind? I'd like to know. It isn't me.
I am not particularly familiar with the history at Wikiversity, but I have read a lot of it. Hey, Moulton, how about helping put together a diff'd history, perhaps on netknowledge.org. I'm really interested in consensus documents on the history. Most of it is unsuppressed, as to the primary sources, the actual edits. But without a story, narrative, it's almost useless. You probably shouldn't write that narrative, you are too close to it. But you should certainly be interviewed and consulted, the writers and editors should look where you suggest (and also where those who opposed you suggest).
I have a suspicion that some of those who did such and such then would now say that it was a mistake. People do that sometimes, Moulton. Admit mistakes. Especially old ones.
QUOTE
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:50am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 6:56am)
If certain individuals (i.e. Jimbo, Sebmol and Mike.lifeguard) didn't enact out-of-process global locks in defiance of community process and community consensus, it wouldn't be necessary to declare independence from their unbecoming and tyrannical practices.
Thank you. I keep mixing up those two names, as I have never had any interaction with either of them. Their names are just empty handles for me.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:18am)
I'm generally thinking of the seminar model there [at WV], which is traditional collaborative learning.
And the only reason I need any editing privileges there at all is to offer an occasional bit of help to individuals like you, Geoff Plourde, JWSchmidt, or PrivateMusings when any of you are engaged in a project that employs a seminar model or collaborative learning model. I don't even need to have an unlocked SUL. I am content to edit as an IP and manually sign my edits, as I am no longer interested in contributing any primary source material there.
And I know that this is true, and all that is needed is a few people who will notice your contributions and "filter" them. I argued on Wikipedia that self-reverted edits, even by the most utterly banned editors, should not be considered violations. These are nothing other than public suggestions, they can be ignored if improper. And if I'm banned, that's exactly what I'd do.
QUOTE
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:53pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 12:34pm)
If certain individuals were not blocked without just cause, evading those blocks might not be necessary.
Touchdown for Kelly!
Adam may not be aware of this, but three respected Wikipedians (Lar, Sam Korn, and GRBerry) all conceded that I was not afforded due process when the editors of IDCab blocked me some three years ago. Eventually others who looked into the case concluded that there was no just cause at all. I was blocked because I was exposing the corrupt practices of IDCab and their allies.
That may not have been the only reason, or not the only reason the ban continued. But it seems pretty clear that this was the origin.
QUOTE
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:48pm)
So essentially the entire Moulton block is about Moulton refusing to accept abusive behaviour by other people, and Wiki politics held that his actions in defending his position were improper (well, you've been on the receiving end of his unique style of questioning, and it is understandably annoying). Since that time it has come to be accepted that his original adversaries were a bunch of unethical conniving defamers, but because of pride, nobody can believe that it is acceptable to re-instate Moulton as there must be some unknown valid reason for the block.
Precisely. Because the blocking admins had consistently failed to post a valid reason, I kept asking people (like JWSchmidt, for example) to help me understand what my transgression was. John was among the first (but by no means the only) person to conclude that there was no valid reason. I was blocked by a cadre of corrupt admins because I was exposing their corrupt practices, full stop.
Perhaps. I can certainly understand why you would come to that conclusion. However, you might also have been blocked by administrators because you were accusing them of corruption, or accusing their friends of corruption. That is, in fact, a kind of corruption! (So, in a sense, you are right.) But also very, very human.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:11pm)
My first experience of Moulton was on Wikinews and I saw there how he turned up expecting to impose his views on the community and inevitably upsetting people
You lose points here, Adambro. For someone on a wiki to express their opinion or "views," i.e., what they have seen, isn't "imposing it." What power did Moulton have to coerce anyone to accept anything? But this kind of opinion about critics is common, it is part of the problem.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:11pm)
My first experience of Moulton was on Wikinews and I saw there how he turned up expecting to impose his views on the community and inevitably upsetting people
I upset Brian McNeil because I had the temerity to suggest that WikiNews (along with a few other WMF-sponsored sites) could benefit from the exercise of crafting a Code of Ethics. McNeil's attitude was, "Ethics? We don't need no steenkin' ethics." And I'm sure you are aware of the recent fiasco at WikiNews when Brian demonstrated his lack of ethics in the case involving Mathew Edwards.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 3:04pm)
A common slogan among oppressed peoples is "No justice, no peace."
The version that I recite is, "If you want peace, work for justice."
Curiously enough, Adambro has twice reverted that comment (when I posted it for my colleague, Geoff Plourde).
At this point, his understanding of benefit to Wikiversity is to revert everything you post, I don't think it matters at all what it is. From his stated position, so far, I expect him to continue to do that until and unless you are unblocked. The problem is really the block, not what you write, per se. It's classic, in fact. Editor is blocked, and in some cases this block was unjust and unnecessary. So the editor protests, perhaps with an unblock template, and it might be denied because of the problems we have mentioned. So the editor socks. That's a very normal human response and, in fact, it's possible that most normal, healthy people would respond that way. Very few people like to be shut out, and many won't tolerate it. So then the editor is "offending" by "block evasion." Which then becomes "ban evasion," after this goes on for some time.
I'm hoping we will eventually come to considering the ban of Moulton. Is it proper at Wikiversity? Jimbo decided it, originally. The community can and should review that, and make its own decision as to how to proceed. The sky will not fall of we do. The community will, I'm sure, consider legitimate cross-wiki issues. If the WMF wants to intervene, it can do so openly.
But one step at a time. Right now, just a lifting of all or part of the global lock on Thekohser, with consensus. That's a good start, as far as I'm concerned.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:54pm)
So perhaps that explains why Adam Brooks doesn't seem to recognize, appreciate. or honor the concept of constitutional rights.
Of course not. The nation that gave the World the Magna Carta and mostly wrote the European Convention on Human Rights is fully cognisant of human rights and is self-confident and stable enough to implement them without needing a written constitution.
Is that the document that describes the native Americans, later almost exterminated by the authors of that document and their followers, as "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions"?
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:48pm)
No, you're just making an easy target out of yourself: I don't think anyone thinks you're the problem.
I'll second that. It's in the nature of this place that people take potshots at easy targets.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 7:49pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 10:18am)
Barry, have you tried EMDR? I highly recommend it, from personal experience.
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing?!? Huh?
Yes. You found it. You'll never guess what it is unless you read more than a little.
I have a story to tell you here, but it's a bit too long to type out. Could I relate this story to you by voice (either on Skype or by good old-fashioned telephony)? It's not a private story, just too long to type out here, in a forum where probably no one else has any interest.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
Is Jimbo the cause of "all" of Moulton's "problems?" Pay attention, Adambro, there are people writing here who are three times your age, and who have been active on-line for longer, I think, than you have been alive. You can learn something from these people if you allow yourself.
Jimbo may or may not be the root of the problem I encountered -- namely the fundamental lack of ethics among the empowered editors of the so-called central cabal. What I do know is that he took no discernible steps to promote a code of ethics at Wikipedia. Rather he took remarkable (and perplexing) steps to protect and defend problematic editors who were later adjudged (by ArbCom) to be hopelessly corrupt.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
Jimbo may or may not have made significant contributions to the harassment of Moulton. But the "problem" is not Moulton's.
I was less concerned about my own case than in finding out if my case was a one-off miscarriage of justice or "business as usual." That was the question I put before ArbCom a few months after my initial block by the allied editors of the IDCabal. ArbCom declined to answer the question. The answer eventually came from Lar, Sam Korn, and GRBerry, who conceded that Wikipedia didn't have a concept of due process at all, and that my case was therefore not particularly unique in that regard. The lengthy and protracted discussion in which Lar, Sam Korn, and GRBerry made that singular disclosure revealed the extent to which the community was hopelessly divided and deadlock on the issues I had raised in my long-unanswered questions before ArbCom.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 7:49pm)
I was initially blocked (on Wikipedia) by the allied editors of the IDCabal, who acted without consulting the community.
I was blocked on Wikiversity by a (back-channel) directive from Jimbo, who had gone there to protect the IDCabal editors whose ethical lapses were coming under review.
Adambro, this seems like a pretty sober account. Jimbo made mistakes, some serious ones, trusting the wrong people. It's not just Moulton, there were others.
And that was the question I was seeking to find the answer to. Was my case unique, or were there other similar examples? It took the better part of a year to discover that there were many other comparable examples (some of which we documented here at W-R). In other words, my case was a fairly typical and otherwise unremarkable example of a recurring pattern of abuse and corruption that was eating away at the project from the inside out. My role wasn't to get justice for myself, but to expose the systemic injustice of which my otherwise forgettable case was a rather dull and tedious example.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
The way Moulton was treated badly fractured the community, and many of those who supported him simply left.
And they left not on my account, but on account of the recurring pattern of corruption and systemic injustice, of which my case was little more than a well-documented example. The main activity of the corrupt editors in my case was to systematically expunge the documentation, which they did in a rather ham-fisted way, turning the whole episode into a theater of the absurd. I notably irritated Ottava by expressly calling it a Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd. And I irritated the corrupt editors by mapping the otherwise tedious accounts of their corrupt practices into a rapidly growing collection of atrocious song parodies.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 7:49pm)
Right now, only Ottava, Abd, and Adambro have looked into the question. And so far, only one of them has made up his mind. Curiously enough, it's the WV custodian with the least familiarity with the litany of past abuses (of which my case is but one of many).
Who has made up his mind? I'd like to know. It isn't me.
No, it isn't you, Abd. And it isn't Ottava either. Only one of the three of you has repeatedly stated (here and on IRC) that he'd already made up his mind, and had no further need of examining the evidence or understanding the backstory.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 11:59pm)
Hey, Moulton, how about helping put together a diff'd history, perhaps on netknowledge.org. I'm really interested in consensus documents on the history. Most of it is unsuppressed, as to the primary sources, the actual edits. But without a story, narrative, it's almost useless. You probably shouldn't write that narrative, you are too close to it. But you should certainly be interviewed and consulted, the writers and editors should look where you suggest (and also where those who opposed you suggest).
Consult with JWSchmidt. He has custody of the documentation, which he has separately summarized on his blog on Collaborative Learning. His concise narrative summary there is probably the best one currently available.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 4th July 2010, 5:55am)
The nation that gave the World the Magna Carta and mostly wrote the European Convention on Human Rights is fully cognisant of human rights and is self-confident and stable enough to implement them without needing a written constitution.
Can you explain how a countryman of yours thinks so little of those unalienable human and civil rights that he routinely denies them to his fellow scholars on Wikiversity?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 6:38am)
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 4th July 2010, 5:55am)
The nation that gave the World the Magna Carta and mostly wrote the European Convention on Human Rights is fully cognisant of human rights and is self-confident and stable enough to implement them without needing a written constitution.
Can you explain how a countryman of yours thinks so little of those unalienable human and civil rights that he routinely denies them to his fellow scholars on Wikiversity?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
tl;dr
One thing caught my eye though.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 12:49am)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 2:11pm)
My first experience of Moulton was on Wikinews and I saw there how he turned up expecting to impose his views on the community and inevitably upsetting people
I upset Brian McNeil because I had the temerity to suggest that WikiNews (along with a few other WMF-sponsored sites) could benefit from the exercise of crafting a Code of Ethics. McNeil's attitude was, "Ethics? We don't need no steenkin' ethics." And I'm sure you are aware of the recent fiasco at WikiNews when Brian demonstrated his lack of ethics in the case involving Mathew Edwards.
I wasn't aware of that incident, I'm absolutely disgusted by what seems to have gone on there. I lost confidence in McNeil as ruler of Wikinews long ago I'm afraid. Maybe I don't understand the full story regarding Mathew Edwards but it is hard to think what could justify some of what he encountered.
McNeil has previously abused his OTRS access by using details from emails he is supposed to keep confidential to write stories. When the infamous trouble maker, erm me, tried to remove those details from the article I found myself blocked. Soon after he decided that my blanking of a load of old main page test pages to stop them showing up in inappropriate categories was vandalism despite the fact that I clearly explained in the edit summary what I was doing and had stopped and responded to comments about it on my talk page. McNeil decided a day after that to block me. You have to wonder why? Blocks are meant to prevent disruption not to punish. Considering I'd stopped doing what some had objected to and explained why I had been doing it on my talk page the block seemed odd. Even more so when as soon as I objected to it, McNeil unblocked me. Assume good faith has never apparently been something McNeil has bothered with.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
My rather brief encounter with Brian McNeil was indicative of a recurring pattern of encounters with other editors who were similarly lacking in professional ethics.
Had editors like Brian McNeil and FeloniousMonk been more receptive to my suggestion to craft and adopt a code of ethics, they might have saved themselves from the ignominious smackdowns that eventually scandalized their reputations in WikiLand. Note that I wasn't even proposing a specific code of ethics. I had simply pointed out that the projects didn't have a written code of ethics at all, and that the exercise of crafting one would be healthy and beneficial to the project.
I was frankly mystified as to why characters like Brian McNeil, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, and Jimbo Wales were so antagonistic to the idea of constructing and adopting a code of ethics, and so intolerant of those of us who favored and promoted such an obviously worthwhile exercise.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sun 4th July 2010, 3:40am)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 8:55am)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 4:36pm)
I'll always complain about people who abuse their power at Wikiversity
Have you considered perhaps how if you are hostile towards people they might struggle not to come across hostile towards you? It works two ways surely?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say about hostility. I'm from a culture where problems are corrected by first pointing to the problems.
I think it is a normal healthy part of wiki participation to object when sysops and other people with special responsibilities abuse their power. One of the major symptoms of "Wikipedia Disease" is sysops who believe that they have the right to use vandalism fighting tools against good faith wiki participants. Such abusive sysops are usually experts at gaming the system. They routinely view objections to their abusive behavior as an "attack" or "hostility".
My first real encounter with you was long before I became an admin and had any "power" to abuse. It was regarding the Template:Deletion request. How would you describe your tone towards me there? Were you welcoming towards a new Wikiversity user who was trying to help out or were you hostile towards me simply because I disagreed with you and had made most of my contributions at that point to the evil Wikipedia?
That someone else on Wikiversity felt they had to apologise for your behaviour is perhaps an indication of how you came across.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
My take is that Adam was probably unfamiliar with the backstory there, in which abusive editors from outside the project were systematically seeking to delete pages for unspecified political reasons, and therefore did not want to have to fill in a reason on the template. Schmidt's careful studies up to that point had uncovered that the unspecified political reasons amounted to a cover-up of their corrupt practices.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
Moulton, thanks for highlighting the latest incident on Wikinews. I've now waved goodbye to my admin rights there. I don't want to be involved with that project any longer or at least whilst the community doesn't care about admins behaving appropriately.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 8:01am)
Moulton, thanks for highlighting the latest incident on Wikinews. I've now waved goodbye to my admin rights there. I don't want to be involved with that project any longer or at least whilst the community doesn't care about admins behaving appropriately.
What do you define as "appropriate" behavior for an admin?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 4th July 2010, 2:13pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 8:01am)
Moulton, thanks for highlighting the latest incident on Wikinews. I've now waved goodbye to my admin rights there. I don't want to be involved with that project any longer or at least whilst the community doesn't care about admins behaving appropriately.
What do you define as "appropriate" behavior for an admin?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 9:01am)
Moulton, thanks for highlighting the latest incident on Wikinews. I've now waved goodbye to my admin rights there. I don't want to be involved with that project any longer or at least whilst the community doesn't care about admins behaving appropriately.
You're welcome.
Note that from the very beginning (almost three years ago, now), I've sought to elevate and improve the accuracy and quality of the published content and the ethics of the editorial processes underway at WMF-sponsored sites. The failure to attend to the need for a reasonable code of ethics has caused considerable harm to a lot of people (not the least of whom were those needing an upgrade to their understanding of ethical principles).
As you are well aware, a substantial number of veteran Wikiversitans have similarly departed from Wikiversity, in the wake of comparable ethical lapses that have occurred there since the so-called "hostile takeover" of which JWSchmidt frequently complains.
He and Abd are perhaps the only two remaining Wikiversitans who still hold out hope for reversing the downward slide that began two summers ago, when Jimbo, Cary, and the cadre of WP editors collectively known as the IDCabal invaded Wikiversity in a ham-fisted effort to suppress and expunge studies there of the issues in managerial ethics that had first come to my own attention in August of 2007.
I frankly don't like to see anyone "go down with the ship" on account of intractable problems in organizational ethics. That's one of the reasons I'm paying so much attention to you, Adam. You are (perhaps unwittingly) in danger of being swept up in inadvertently perpetuating the corrupt practices that we sought (with limited success) to arrest some two or three years ago.
The backstories are important, Adam, because they have a lot of explanatory power regarding your otherwise unexplained run-ins with JWSchmidt.
I appreciate that some of the material I posted above is "tl;dr" but I urge you to take the time to discover for yourself if you are falling into an avoidable trap by perpetuating the prior actions of erratic and corrupt admins (some of whom have since left the projects in disgrace).
I don't see anything there that isn't typical behavior of admins on any and all Wikimedia projects. If you're going to resign Wikinews on that basis, you should resign your adminship on all Wikimedia projects as well; they're all just as corrupt.
I don't see anything there that isn't typical behavior of admins on any and all Wikimedia projects. If you're going to resign Wikinews on that basis, you should resign your adminship on all Wikimedia projects as well; they're all just as corrupt.
As I've commented on Wikinews, I've not resigned my admin rights simply on the basis of that issue. The primary reason is that I'm not really active there and nor do I expect that to change much. Elsewhere, I am well aware that similar stuff goes on but I am more active and so having admin rights despite being associated with some of the crap that does go on isn't as much of an issue because I actually use those rights for, at least what I consider to be, useful purposes.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
What useful purpose is served by denying your fellow scholars at WV the right to communicate with me (or Greg) on their own talk pages, or on other general discussions pages where they have solicited thoughtful commentary on issues that we have been discussing collaboratively, constructively, and collegially off-wiki for months (or even years) now?
What useful purpose is served by blocking a quarter million IPs in Eastern Massachusetts for no other reason than to perpetuate and sustain a corrupt or erratic prior action that circumvented the community's unalienable right to diligent and conscientious self-governance?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 2:55pm)
What useful purpose is served by denying your fellow scholars at WV the right to communicate with me (or Greg) on their own talk pages, or on other general discussions pages where they have solicited thoughtful commentary on issues that we have been discussing collaboratively, constructively, and collegially off-wiki for months (or even years) now?
What useful purpose is served by blocking a quarter million IPs in Eastern Massachusetts for no other reason than to perpetuate and sustain a corrupt or erratic prior action that circumvented the community's unalienable right to diligent and conscientious self-governance?
I agree with the block and so will act to enforce it. You seem to repeatedly try to paint the block as invalid yet that is another thing I don't buy. The block was discussed extensively, your current block is not the work of Jimbo who you could describe as an outsider, and there seems to be little real enthusiasm for you to be unblocked.
If you wish to be unblocked I would suggest staying off Wikiversity and waiting to see what comes of trying to open up Greg's talk page so he can communicate with the community using it. How that little exercise goes could aid in developing a way of considering unblocking you. The more time you spend evading the block the less inclined I will be to support any unblock. As I've said, you were discussed extensively by the community and the current block was done by someone who is a member of the community. I think trying to pretend the block has no validity and evading it is just disrespectful of the community you say you apparently want to let you return.
I would love to be able to unblock the Eastern Massachusetts range. Will you allow me to do so by not ignoring the block, regardless of how invalid you consider it? The ball is in your court. Can I trust you?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 9:28am)
I would love to be able to unblock the Eastern Massachusetts range. Will you allow me to do so by not ignoring the block, regardless of how invalid you consider it? The ball is in your court. Can I trust you?
It seems rather unreasonable of you to demand concessions from someone who has been repeatedly and unabashedly abused by the system you willingly represent.
Basically what you're doing here is "I have power over you so if you want to get anything you must do as I say". This is a very valid attitude to take, as it factually reflects the realities of the situation: you have the unchecked power to grant or deny Moulton's requests as you see fit. Your attitude is, however, not a very mature one, and does not bode well for either the future of Wikiversity under your stewardship, or your personal moral development.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 8:46am)
As I've commented on Wikinews, I've not resigned my admin rights simply on the basis of that issue. The primary reason is that I'm not really active there and nor do I expect that to change much. Elsewhere, I am well aware that similar stuff goes on but I am more active and so having admin rights despite being associated with some of the crap that does go on isn't as much of an issue because I actually use those rights for, at least what I consider to be, useful purposes.
So you resigned those rights because they don't mean much, if anything, to you and so the gesture is essentially meaningless: a whispered protest in the wilderness. Gotcha.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:28am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 2:55pm)
What useful purpose is served by denying your fellow scholars at WV the right to communicate with me (or Greg) on their own talk pages, or on other general discussions pages where they have solicited thoughtful commentary on issues that we have been discussing collaboratively, constructively, and collegially off-wiki for months (or even years) now?
I agree with the block and so will act to enforce it.
Have you asked Abd, JWSchmidt, Geoff Plourde, Leigh Blackall, or PrivateMusings if they agree with the block? They are your fellow scholars who enjoy discussing issues of mutual interest with me. Do you have any desire to ensure that you are not arrogantly violating their rights as independent scholars? Or would you prefer they follow SB_Johnny, Hillgentleman, and others over to NetKnowledge, so that you and Ottava can preserve Wikiversity for yourselves?
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:28am)
You seem to repeatedly try to paint the block as invalid yet that is another thing I don't buy. The block was discussed extensively, your current block is not the work of Jimbo who you could describe as an outsider, and there seems to be little real enthusiasm for you to be unblocked.
Just because you might have sided with those who favored a block, do you nonetheless wish to deprive those who were against Jimbo's intervention from exercising their right to decide for themselves? Or do you wish that those who were appalled by Jimbo's intervention continue to abandon Wikiversity in favor of a more collegial and congenial learning community?
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:28am)
If you wish to be unblocked I would suggest staying off Wikiversity and waiting to see what comes of trying to open up Greg's talk page so he can communicate with the community using it. How that little exercise goes could aid in developing a way of considering unblocking you. The more time you spend evading the block the less inclined I will be to support any unblock. As I've said, you were discussed extensively by the community and the current block was done by someone who is a member of the community. I think trying to pretend the block has no validity and evading it is just disrespectful of the community you say you apparently want to let you return.
I am not asking to be unblocked. There is no substantive academic content that I propose to write at Wikiversity. As an academic, I often attend seminars and discussions hosted at institutions other than my own. It is customary in academia to welcome visiting scholars from other institutions who have occasion to join their colleagues in academia in scholarly discussions and seminars. Do you wish to paint Wikiversity as an uncollegial and uncongenial venue, hostile and antagonistic to visiting scholars from other communities?
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:28am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 2:55pm)
What useful purpose is served by blocking a quarter million IPs in Eastern Massachusetts for no other reason than to perpetuate and sustain a corrupt or erratic prior action that circumvented the community's unalienable right to diligent and conscientious self-governance?
I would love to be able to unblock the Eastern Massachusetts range. Will you allow me to do so by not ignoring the block, regardless of how invalid you consider it? The ball is in your court. Can I trust you?
I would prefer that you undertake a conscientious scholarly review of the entire concept of blocking, and explain to me why you do not consider it anathema to the very function of an authentic academic enterprise. Can I trust you to engage in authentic scholarly review and discussion?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 4th July 2010, 3:41pm)
Basically what you're doing here is "I have power over you so if you want to get anything you must do as I say". This is a very valid attitude to take, as it factually reflects the realities of the situation: you have the unchecked power to grant or deny Moulton's requests as you see fit. Your attitude is, however, not a very mature one, and does not bode well for either the future of Wikiversity under your stewardship, or your personal moral development.
The reality here is that I don't have much power. I could unblock Moulton yes, but that still wouldn't allow him to log in and edit due to the global lock on his account. All I can do here is support an approach to the stewards to allow us to make a decision.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 4th July 2010, 3:41pm)
So you resigned those rights because they don't mean much, if anything, to you and so the gesture is essentially meaningless: a whispered protest in the wilderness. Gotcha.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 11:17am)
The reality here is that I don't have much power. I could unblock Moulton yes, but that still wouldn't allow him to log in and edit due to the global lock on his account. All I can do here is support an approach to the stewards to allow us to make a decision.
Not that you've asked for my advice, Adam, but here it is anyway: just step out of it and let Barry chip in when he feels like doing so. Four good reasons:
1. He's more than capable of going around just about any block you can contrive (the brother has been on the interwebs far longer than you, knows lots of tricks, and can effortlessly learn whatever tricks he doesn't know already).
2. All he's doing is speaking his mind, which isn't a particularly harmful thing to do. More than that, he's generally trying to educate you and your fellow WV pals, and while his pedagogical approach could use some improvement, the actual lesson is a pretty good one.
3. No offense, but I rather get the impression that you don't exactly know why he was blocked in the first place, so you really shouldn't be enforcing it. Remember: you're a volunteer, not an employee, so you really don't need to waste your time doing what "the boss(es)" say you should do unless they give you a clear reason to do so.
4. It's just not worth the frustration, and not worth making a target of yourself for your pals here on WR to throw rotten fruit at.
Again, just giving you some unsolicited advice here. YMMV.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 11:17am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 4th July 2010, 3:41pm)
Basically what you're doing here is "I have power over you so if you want to get anything you must do as I say". This is a very valid attitude to take, as it factually reflects the realities of the situation: you have the unchecked power to grant or deny Moulton's requests as you see fit. Your attitude is, however, not a very mature one, and does not bode well for either the future of Wikiversity under your stewardship, or your personal moral development.
The reality here is that I don't have much power. I could unblock Moulton yes, but that still wouldn't allow him to log in and edit due to the global lock on his account. All I can do here is support an approach to the stewards to allow us to make a decision.
I have no need to log in for the purposes I have in mind, which is to function as an occasional visiting scholar from another learning community, to attend an occasional discussion or seminar hosted by Abd, JWSchmidt, PrivateMusings, Leigh Blackall, or Geoff Plourde.
For example, Geoff (as you may know) is working on a course in topics in Christian Theological Studies. He has asked me to come in as a visiting scholar to participate in a planned session on "Types and Shadows." Do you wish to deprive him and his fellow scholars of that seminar?
Would you prefer that he abandon Wikiversity as an uncollegial and uncongenial venue for hosting such seminars, and migrate to another community, where he would not be impeded by your Javertian zeal in enforcing blocks such as the one Jimbo dictated in my case?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 4th July 2010, 4:55am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:54pm)
So perhaps that explains why Adam Brooks doesn't seem to recognize, appreciate. or honor the concept of constitutional rights.
Of course not. The nation that gave the World the Magna Carta and mostly wrote the European Convention on Human Rights is fully cognisant of human rights and is self-confident and stable enough to implement them without needing a written constitution.
And yet, you now have your own Supreme Court. Can a written constitution be far behind? It has been spoken of in Whitehall for long enough.
Is that the document that describes the native Americans, later almost exterminated by the authors of that document and their followers, as "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions"?
The same. It also describes British troops and their European mercenaries as acting "with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy . . . of a civilized nation." It further states that their own cousins in Britain "have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity." Although often described as a "founding document" here in the States, that does not make it more than what it appears to be on the surface: a political manifesto. Compare some of its more purple prose to declarations made by the Roundheads during the English Civil War. See any similarities? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
Beyond this, you demonstrate your ignorance of the history of English settlement in America and their relationships with the Indians. And it was largely an English project of settlement; it is estimated that about 70% of the population was ethnically English at the time of the Revolution. While there was indeed a holocaust amongst the Native American population, most particularly in what is today the eastern United States, that occurred in the early seventeenth century, not the eighteenth or nineteenth, and the culprit was germs, not warfare or systematic genocide. When the English scouts and surveyors first peered into the interior of the continent, they found dozens of abandoned and desolate Indian settlements left behind by those who died, generally of smallpox, to which they had no immunity whatever. This being nearly three centuries before the advent of germ theory, what they saw was attributed to the will of God, preparing the way for English settlement into the interior. In the same manner that the States adopted much of the common law of England as the law of the State after the Revolution, the attitudes and policy of the US Department of the Interior take their direct descent from the attitudes and policy toward the Indians during the Colonial Era.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 4:36am)
Were you welcoming towards a new Wikiversity user who was trying to help out or were you hostile towards me simply because I disagreed with you and had made most of my contributions at that point to the evil Wikipedia?
Before the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008 there was an effort to establish Wikiversity as a community of (often very young) learners, where we helped new participants edit and learn collaboratively. You came to Wikiversity and set about trying to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity participants. Given your disruption of the Wikiversity project and your unwillingness to recognize that Wikiversity did not have the same deletionist culture as Wikipedia, I did not view you as "trying to help out", nor can I interpret any of your abusive actions since being made a Wikiversity sysop as helping Wikiversity.
"the evil Wikipedia" <-- in its early years even Wikipedia welcomed new participants and helped them learn how to participate constructively. Then "Wikipedia disease" set in and a destructive cadre of "wiki cops" started playing their "bash the vandals" MMORPG. Now wikimedia wiki projects are routinely disrupted by abusive sysops who claim the right to use vandalism-fighting tools against good faith wiki participants. After two years of terrorizing Wikiversity a few abusive sysops have essentially destroyed the community of honest Wikiversity participants. If you are trying to put the words "evil Wikipedia" in my mouth then I'd challenge you to find a time when I have said that Wikipedia is evil. Certainly there have been many misguided sysops who learned and perfected their odious practices at Wikipedia.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 4th July 2010, 5:08pm)
you demonstrate your ignorance of the history of English settlement in America and their relationships with the Indians.
Has it occurred to you that the Founding Fathers could only complain about the British (not the English) setting the Indians on them because the Indians preferred the British crown to the secessionists? And while the British (and French) might accidentally have introduced diseases, they were never responsible for the genocide and systematic expropriation of land that went on in the 19th century. I mean, was General Custer working for the British?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sun 4th July 2010, 8:24pm)
You came to Wikiversity and set about trying to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity participants. Given your disruption of the Wikiversity project and your unwillingness to recognize that Wikiversity did not have the same deletionist culture as Wikipedia, I did not view you as "trying to help out", nor can I interpret any of your abusive actions since being made a Wikiversity sysop as helping Wikiversity.
So, as a new contributor with, I would fully accept, a limited understanding of the project, your reaction to what you'd say were mistakes in suggesting certain pages were deleted was to become hostile towards me? Surely it would be better to have politely highlighted the differences between Wikiversity and those projects where I had more experience.
You seem to be saying that if a new user turns up on Wikiversity and does something you don't like it is okay to be hostile towards them if you feel they are being hostile. That is really just a race to the bottom in terms of civility.
You really seem to fail to assume good faith. You say you did not view me as trying to help out. Then what? I was trying to damage the project? Of course not, I was trying to help it. The very important word in the last sentence is "trying". That you would suggest that my efforts didn't help the project doesn't mean they weren't well intentioned.
For every "abusive action" I can explain why I felt it was appropriate. That you disagree with that explanation doesn't instantly mean I abused my rights as you seem to suggest.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 4th July 2010, 2:54pm)
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 4th July 2010, 5:08pm)
you demonstrate your ignorance of the history of English settlement in America and their relationships with the Indians.
Has it occurred to you that the Founding Fathers could only complain about the British (not the English) setting the Indians on them because the Indians preferred the British crown to the secessionists? And while the British (and French) might accidentally have introduced diseases, they were never responsible for the genocide and systematic expropriation of land that went on in the 19th century. I mean, was General Custer working for the British?
Indians actually fought on both sides during the Revolution, just as there were Ulstermen and Englishmen fighting on both sides. Like everyone else, the Indians chose sides or tried to remain neutral according to what they perceived to be in their best interests. Those tribes that sided with the Crown in the 1770s and again in 1812 ended up rather bitterly disappointed, a disappointment that would later figure significantly in Canadian history.
The US never had a policy of genocide against the Indians, although for some decades the Interior Dept. did pursue a policy of assimilation, which some have referred to as "cultural genocide". There is no doubt, however, that the BIA all too often looked the other way as treaty rights were violated and widespread mining went on upon Indian lands without their consent. There were also forced removals and concentrations upon reservations which ended up in the deaths of many Indians; certainly not approaching the millions of deaths that occurred in the seventeenth century epidemics, but significant numbers all the same. Of course, the British and French were not involved in any of this. They were far, far too busy exploiting the natural resources of native peoples and former slaves in the Caribbean, South America, Africa and Southeast Asia to concern themselves with the Indians of North America any longer.
As for Custer, his reputation as an Indian fighter has been exaggerated out of all proportion. His career as an Indian-fighting general was rather brief, his troops never killed that many Indians, and it was he, not his opposite number Sitting Bull, that was killed at Little Big Horn. Still, he was at least as bold on the battlefield as he was in self-promotion, which was rather bold indeed.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 4th July 2010, 2:55am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 3rd July 2010, 1:54pm)
So perhaps that explains why Adam Brooks doesn't seem to recognize, appreciate. or honor the concept of constitutional rights.
Of course not. The nation that gave the World the Magna Carta and mostly wrote the European Convention on Human Rights is fully cognisant of human rights and is self-confident and stable enough to implement them without needing a written constitution.
Ummm, this doesn't quite follow. As you may know, the main "rights" guaranteed to the ordinary citizen by magna carta (for example, of due process and habeus corpus rights against arrest at somebody's pleasure) were essentially forgotten for 4 centuries after it was "signed" (sealed). Mostly because the average person couldn't read, and those who could read, didn't have a copy of magna carta!
Writing stuff down is really important, or otherwise it tends to go down the old memory hole like something oversighted off Wikipedia. Historically, England didn't really start remembering magna carta until the struggles before the English civil war. As example, in Shakespeare's King John you will look in vain for anything referring to the events at Runnymede, even though in the present day, that's one of the main things we remember John I for.*
MR
*And also his bother being off on crusade, causing such problems for Notingham and Robin Hood, heh. Sometimes the myth is far better known than reality (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Well, I didn't get around to writing a parody of The Declaration of Indignation, reciting a litany of abuses by King George Adam Brookes at Wikiversity.
But since Milton Roe has mentioned Runnymede, I'll recall that the last such parody, The Declaration of Indigestion, does include a reference to Stephen Langton.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
Admit it, Adam, at least to yourself:
You're addicted to your admin powers on WMF servers. You can't stop reverting/blocking, because it's like heroin to you. It is the only place where you have gotten any kind of power over other people.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:28am)
I would love to be able to unblock the Eastern Massachusetts range. Will you allow me to do so by not ignoring the block, regardless of how invalid you consider it? The ball is in your court. Can I trust you?
Sorry, Adambro, this is vastly excessive. Right now, all the WMF sites seem inaccessible, but, if I have anything to say about it, this kind of collateral damage isn't going to be permitted. Please unblock. If you want to block a single IP, fine. If you want to revert edits of a banned editor, fine. We can review those. We can't review what we can't see. I have seen no actually harmful edits from Moulton lately, so that must be weighed against the possible loss of participation by IP editors.
Moulton, I'm going to ask you to respect the block for the moment, regardless of what I just said about Adambro's range block -- which I haven't seen yet. That is a request, not a demand. You may send me email or PM here with any message you want to put on Wikiversity, and I will put it on your Talk page there if I consider it sufficiently non-disruptive. It doesn't have to be perfect. I think Ottava would do the same. However, I'm encouraging you, at the moment, to back off in general, because it is going to be hard enough, possibly, to get Thekohser unlocked without tossing in The Big Bad Moulton. I know that all of this may be read by Powers that Be, but I've been careful to note that any objections will be considered by me and that I intend to proceed very carefully. "Considered by me" means as to what recommendations I will make or requests I will make.
I'm not in charge, it's up to, as it should be, the Wikiversity community, on the one hand, and those who actually represent the WikiMedia Foundation, on the other, not those who may be acting on their own. For too long, I suspect, some meta administrators and stewards have thought that their job was to control the whole WMF project set. No, their job is to serve it. That includes the Founder, who for long served as the "God-King," when that may have been needed. It may be time to establish priorities and proper distribution of power. I bet he would agree, and it's possible he will be asked.
But one baby step at a time.
This is about going forward, not about rehearsing the "crimes" or mistakes of the past.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:38pm)
Moulton, I'm going to ask you to respect the block for the moment, regardless of what I just said about Adambro's range block -- which I haven't seen yet.
So far, he's blocked two (out of five) /18 CIDR Verizon networks in Eastern Massachusetts. Work out the math, Abd. That's 2^15 = 32,768 IP addresses. Eventually, when he blocks all five of Verizon's networks, it will be 262,144 addresses (over a quarter million). And then he'll block some of MIT's huge Class A network, and eventually the entire IPV6 network, just to keep me out.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:38pm)
But one baby step at a time.
It's been two years, Abd. And in the meantime, WV has been sundered by the same practices that Jimbo first used against me in 2008. When he used them again, against PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, and Greg Kohs, the site imploded.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 4th July 2010, 10:38pm)
This is about going forward, not about rehearsing the "crimes" or mistakes of the past.
Abd, the prospect of going forward is nil to non-existent.
WMF is hell-bent on teaching despotism to that little girl in Africa, full stop.
Wikiversity ceased being an authentic learning community two summers ago, when it morphed into a post-modern theater of the absurd.
Mike, The SUL Thekohser had been unlocked in the beginning of May, and it appeared to be consensus to do that, generally, allowing each WMF wiki to make its own decisions about allegedly disruptive users. May 30, however, you re-locked, citing an unspecified discussion.[2] As you know, Thekohser attempted to open dialog yesterday, starting the account Thekohser-2 on Wikiversity. There seemed to be some consensus to allow him to, at least, use his original talk page to negotiate return. However, I discovered your May 30 relock, which made it impossible for him to use Thekohser for this, defeating my allowance of Talk page access for him. And now you have globally locked Thekohser-2 as well.[3] What's happening and why?
The appearance is that you are unilaterally making decisions about who can edit Wikiversity, and every WMF wiki, without any consideration of what the local communities prefer, effectively undoing the actions of various administrators who have unblocked him or allowed Talk page or email access. What's the reality? Thanks. --Abd 01:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The reality is he's banned, and the ban is being enforced. – mike@meta:~$ 16:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I don't think you answered my question, which was about the "discussion" you mentioned with the lock, and the appearance that your action might be unilateral, or might have resulted from a private discussion with unspecified participants. "Being enforced" is passive voice. Who decided he is banned, under what authority, and where is this documented? In any case, you need not trouble yourself, this will be handled as a routine matter, it's just that it would be simplest if resolved here. --Abd 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Mike.lifeguard (like MaxSem before him) is enforcing Jimbo's back-channel, out-of-process edicts regarding the SUL locks on Greg and me. Nor is there any prospect that Jimbo will relinquish self-governance back to the local communities.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 11:59pm)
It's pretty clear that Mike.lifeguard (like MaxSem before him) is enforcing Jimbo's back-channel, out-of-process edicts regarding the SUL locks on Greg and me. Nor is there any prospect that Jimbo will relinquish self-governance back to the local communities.
Not clear at all, Moulton, though, of course, you might be correct. And you might not. Rather, I'm simply asking a question. Mike.lifeguard may answer or not, but if he does not answer, it's moot, the unlock request will go to the stewards page, and right now it looks like it will go with local consensus. Diego Grez, by the way, just unblocked your Talk page block, so that if and when your global lock is released, you'll be able to log in and edit your Talk page directly. Be careful, okay?
If Jimbo is running the local wikis through surrogates, very simple. He can say so. If he doesn't say so, then I'll assume he is not and appeal this thing through channels, assuming I continue to have local support. I'm disclosing the next step, the stewards request page. I'm not disclosing what comes after that, because I only have a reasonably clear decision on the next step. I will say, however, that it is unlikely to end with a possible denial at the stewards page, unless they give nice, cogent arguments. The fact is that I expect the request for unlock to be granted. It was consensus until May 30, as far as anything I've been able to find. Perhaps Mike.lifeguard will point me to the "discussion" he referred to. Wouldn't that be nice and simple?
Oh, what a tangled web.... I hold no fixed judgments about anyone in this affair. Tell me, whom do stewards serve, to whom are they responsible? Just curious. My impression is that stewards serve the overall community and are responsible to it; WMF has staff and the staff flag to handle WMF interests, but I've never seen this anywhere in writing.
QUOTE
Happy Independence Day, Abd.
Hey, my fiance is visiting, I'm happy as a clam.
By the way, I just unblocked those IP ranges. Please don't make it difficult for me by socking with them. I give you permission to edit, IP, my user talk page on Wikiversity, provided you self-revert. Write in the edit summary, "Self-revert per ban of Moulton." I wll then review the edit and revert it back if I find no problem with it, but I'll read it in any case, and so can others, if they want to. If I had a community consensus behind it, I'd allow this everywhere on the wiki, unless it is actually abused.
At this point, however, the global lock may still cause problems with IP. But I predict that this will pass, so you can also message the Wikiversity community through what I offered before: I'll forward any nondisruptive message to your Talk page. "Non-disruptive" merely means that I'm willing to take responsibility for the edit, and, to do this, I'll need to know that it's from you. PM here is one way. I don't recall if I have your direct email address.... I'm willing to consider also placing *on-topic* messages elsewhere. Please no rubbing of noses in shit. Even on-topic!
It is about time, as far as I'm concerned, to end this juvenile sock and blockfest. It's not just you, Moulton. I see almost every day a WP sock report on Scibaby, and that situation was created through admin abuse, it's very clear. It wastes a huge amount of editor time when there are very likely much less destructive responses. Raul654 apparently lost his checkuser flag over this mess, I had spoken with functionaries who were quite concerned about the massive range blocks he'd been applying due to his drive to Stop Scibaby, and all the damage that was causing.
Adambro, if you read this first, please don't reblock, which would be wheel-warring if you do it. I highly recommend that you recuse on this, a single admin should not become the Enforcer, it makes trouble. However, my view is that recusal does not disallow short blocks needed to prevent actual disruption, provided there is immediate discussion. If Moulton continues socking in spite of my request, I'll respond, but minimally as needed, and more if the community needs it and supports it.
You may certainly, no problem, revert the contributions of any blocked editor, that's routine and takes no admin tools, and then it's up to others if they want to bring them back in. But I recommend just backing up, personally. Aren't there better things to do? Real question, that is, and the answer is up to you.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 4th July 2010, 11:59pm)
It's pretty clear that Mike.lifeguard (like MaxSem before him) is enforcing Jimbo's back-channel, out-of-process edicts regarding the SUL locks on Greg and me. Nor is there any prospect that Jimbo will relinquish self-governance back to the local communities.
Not clear at all, Moulton, though, of course, you might be correct. And you might not. Rather, I'm simply asking a question. Mike.lifeguard may answer or not, but if he does not answer, it's moot, the unlock request will go to the stewards page, and right now it looks like it will go with local consensus.
He evaded your question, just as Jeff (and Jimbo) evaded mine. Ask JWSchmidt about those evasions. There is a reason they decline to answer reasonable questions. And I have no doubt you are aware of the reason.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
Diego Grez, by the way, just unblocked your Talk page block, so that if and when your global lock is released, you'll be able to log in and edit your Talk page directly. Be careful, okay?
The User:Moulton page remains locked (by Mike.lifeguard), and it remains in a vandalized state. It was originally vandalized by Paul Mitchell (aka FeloniousMonk), who did so from an anonymous IP that traced back to his place of work at Macy's San Francisco Operations Center. You do recall what ArbCom finally had to say about Mr. Mitchell's machinations at WP?
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
If Jimbo is running the local wikis through surrogates, very simple. He can say so.
I thought he said so (as did Cary). And more than once. Do I need to dig up the links for you?
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
If he doesn't say so, then I'll assume he is not and appeal this thing through channels, assuming I continue to have local support. I'm disclosing the next step, the stewards request page. I'm not disclosing what comes after that, because I only have a reasonably clear decision on the next step. I will say, however, that it is unlikely to end with a possible denial at the stewards page, unless they give nice, cogent arguments. The fact is that I expect the request for unlock to be granted. It was consensus until May 30, as far as anything I've been able to find. Perhaps Mike.lifeguard will point me to the "discussion" he referred to. Wouldn't that be nice and simple?
You're welcome to run through the exercise, Abd. You level of hopefulness is considerably more audacious than mine.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
Oh, what a tangled web.... I hold no fixed judgments about anyone in this affair. Tell me, whom do stewards serve, to whom are they responsible? Just curious. My impression is that stewards serve the overall community and are responsible to it; WMF has staff and the staff flag to handle WMF interests, but I've never seen this anywhere in writing.
You did read what Kelly Martin wrote in this thread earlier today, did you not? The system is corrupt, through and through.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
By the way, I just unblocked those IP ranges. Please don't make it difficult for me by socking with them.
I saw that. You unblocked them while I was editing on the Colloquium page from an IPV6 address.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:41am)
It is about time, as far as I'm concerned, to end this juvenile sock and blockfest. It's not just you, Moulton.
It's puerile nonsense that permeates WMF sites. It transformed WV from an authentic learning community into a ridiculous theater of the absurd.
As I see it, Abd, the next order of business is to summon Jimbo to WV to respond to the unanswered questions from December 2008.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Adam Brookes continues to arrogantly deny his fellow scholars on Wikiversity the right to engage in collegial scholarly discussions with the visiting scholars of their choice.
Does this not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Adam (in concert with Ottava and Mike.lifeguard) have succeeded in disabling Wikiversity and rendering it utterly dysfunctional with respect to the original objective of hosting an authentic learning community?
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 4th July 2010, 11:20pm)
Of course, the British and French were not involved in any of this. They were far, far too busy exploiting the natural resources of native peoples and former slaves in the Caribbean, South America, Africa and Southeast Asia to concern themselves with the Indians of North America any longer.
As a matter of interest, when was slavery abolished in the UK? When was it abolished in the US? How many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners?
And on the smallpox issue, how does anyone know how many Native Americans died from it? There were surely no censuses or death registers. Maybe there were just far fewer of them than people thought.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 4th July 2010, 11:20pm)
As example, in Shakespeare's King John you will look in vain for anything referring to the events at Runnymede, even though in the present day, that's one of the main things we remember John I for.
My point is that British people are well aware of, and have pioneered, human rights, and need no lectures from people in the US. If you don't like Magna Carta, just stick to the European stuff.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:22pm)
Adam Brookes continues to arrogantly deny his fellow scholars on Wikiversity the right to engage in collegial scholarly discussions with the visiting scholars of their choice.
I'm glad you've now realised the correct spelling of my name. I remain curious as to why you insist on using it though since most people will more easily recognise me by my username.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
So, Ulsterman, can you explain to me why your countryman, Adam Brookes, has no respect for the rights of his fellow scholars at Wikiversity? How is his denial of their right to assemble in peaceable and collegial study any different from the abuses and usurpations recited against King George?
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:31pm)
So, Ulsterman, can you explain to me why your countryman, Adam Brookes, has no respect for the rights of his fellow scholars at Wikiversity? How is his denial of their right to assemble in peaceable and collegial study any different from the abuses and usurpations recited against King George?
I have no way of knowing whether he has respect for the rights of his fellow scholars. Isn't that what you call a theory of mind? And of course, it may be that he respects the rights of some, even most, of his fellow scholars. I've hardly ever looked at WV other than following links from here so I can't say.
What's the difference from King George? WV is a private site and the owners can set down the rules for participation. That's a very different issue from universal human rights. If indeed it is the case (and as I say I don't know) that an admin on WV is behaving badly, I deplore it and, if he will listen to me, I urge him to mend his ways. But it's only a third-rate website, for Heaven's sake! It's scarcely like the real world.
And as we both know, what was said about King George was a gross exaggeration. Is that also true about Adambro?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:53am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:31pm)
So, Ulsterman, can you explain to me why your countryman, Adam Brookes, has no respect for the rights of his fellow scholars at Wikiversity? How is his denial of their right to assemble in peaceable and collegial study any different from the abuses and usurpations recited against King George?
I have no way of knowing whether he has respect for the rights of his fellow scholars. Isn't that what you call a theory of mind? And of course, it may be that he respects the rights of some, even most, of his fellow scholars. I've hardly ever looked at WV other than following links from here so I can't say.
In this case, it's an observation of recurring practices (which plausibly derive from a persistent state of mind). I don't know that I could accurately recite an account of his desires, beliefs, or intentions, but the pattern of his practices is laid bare for all to see. And (as I see it) that pattern is to summarily deny the rights of his fellow scholars to freely choose their partners in study and their modes of discussion.
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:53am)
What's the difference from King George? WV is a private site and the owners can set down the rules for participation. That's a very different issue from universal human rights. If indeed it is the case (and as I say I don't know) that an admin on WV is behaving badly, I deplore it and, if he will listen to me, I urge him to mend his ways. But it's only a third-rate website, for Heaven's sake! It's scarcely like the real world.
WV is a 501c3 tax exempt educational project funded by donors. Control of the projects has been captured by corrupt operatives who demonstrate little interest in or respect for the norms of an authentic learning community. Rather they seem hell-bent on impeding and disabling the learning process as much as possible.
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:53am)
And as we both know, what was said about King George was a gross exaggeration. Is that also true about Adambro?
I actually haven't said that much about Adam yet. Yesterday, I was thinking of walking through the clauses of the US Declaration of Independence, looking for structural parallels between the litany of abuses recited against King George and the (as yet unarticulated) litany against Adam.
But it seemed too tedious an exercise to be terribly useful.
This morning, I was responding there (on Wikiversity) to remarks made to me or about me by half a dozen scholars at Wikiversity. One of them (WAS 4.250) has a long history of constructive dialogue with me (mostly on my talk pages at WP, Meta, and WV). But WAS 4.250 will only dialogue with people on the Wiki. He refuses to use e-mail, IRC, or forums like Wikipedia Review. He was delighted for the chance to resume our conversations. But this morning Adam abruptly denied him that right, without so much as a by-your-leave. Is that not incontrovertible evidence that Adam has no respect for the rights of his fellow scholars to peaceably assemble and study together, in a collegial and congenial learning community?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:31am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:22pm)
Adam Brookes continues to arrogantly deny his fellow scholars on Wikiversity the right to engage in collegial scholarly discussions with the visiting scholars of their choice.
I'm glad you've now realised the correct spelling of my name. I remain curious as to why you insist on using it though since most people will more easily recognise me by my username.
I'm calling you by your real name, Adam, because this is a serious issue which affects your real life and career. This is not an issue inside of some silly MMPORG where your conduct as a costumed player can be as atrocious or outrageous as you like.
When JW Schmidt and others created Wikiversity, they envisioned it as an authentic learning community that differed in important ways from Wikipedia. In particular, they envisioned it as a place for collaborative learning.
A few days ago, you expressed some concerned that the blame was now falling on your shoulders for the low level of activity at WV.
There are some organic reasons for the decline in activity there, Adam, not the least of which was the devastating effect on the community there when Jimbo abruptly intervened there a few months ago. As you know, the most significant casualty of that intervention was the departure of SB_Johnny, the Custodian who had closed your own nomination for Custodianship (over the objections of JW Schmidt, who felt you lacked the requisite qualifications for the role).
Now despite the departures of SBJ, Hillgentleman, and a few others, there remains a few veteran scholars like Geoff Plourde, WAS 4.250, and JW Schmidt, as well as Abd, the newest Custodian on the block. They (and a few others) continue to collaborate with me in multiple venues, and they occasionally invite me to work with them in their remaining scholarly pursuits at WV. Most notably among these are Geoff Plourde who asked me to join his study group when they got to the module on "Types and Shadows," and WAS 4.250, with whom I have had many long and fruitful converstions at WP, Meta, and WV. He only posts on-wiki; he declines to use E-Mail, IRC, or forums like Wikipedia Review. The only venue where he and I can converse is a venue like Wikiversity.
So when you arrogantly deny them the right to enjoy my company at Wikiversity, you are engaging in an unbecoming practice that jeopardizes your stature as an accomplished, mature, and professional academic. Instead, you come across as the character, Javert, in Les Miserables. Adam, that is not the reputation you want to earn if you want to make a career out of your studies in Engineering.
You may not know this, but my undergraduate degrees are also in Electrical Engineering. (They didn't yet have Computer Engineering as a part of the departmental names back in the 1960s.) So I feel an especial affinity to students from my own discipline, and I don't like to see them fail.
It pains me more than I can say when I see you disrupt the academic activities of your fellow Wikiversitans who have expressly invited me to work with them on their projects, discussions, and seminars there. In a word, Adam, it's unprofessional and unbecoming conduct of someone who has the responsibility of husbanding an authentic learning community.
Now if Wikiversity fails on account of unwise policies and practices instigated by Jimbo, it's not really a problem. SB_Johnny has already set up an alternative learning community at NetKnowledge. Geoff, JW Schmidt, Abd, and PrivateMusings can all port their work over to the new site with little effort. But if that is how Wikiversity dies, you may be the one left holding the bag and taking the blame for the dissolution of the community at WV.
You have a lot to lose and nothing to gain by depriving your fellow Wikiversitans of the freedom to learn with the collaborating partners of their choice.
Think it over carefully, Adam, because it's your future that hangs in the balance. Abd and I are at retirement age. We have a lot less at stake than you do. You can jerk us around if you like, but it will only make you look like a jerk, and that ain't good for your career.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 4:50pm)
I'm calling you by your real name, Adam, because this is a serious issue which affects your real life and career.
Oh, really? What is more likely to affect my real life and career is treating this whole thing too seriously and letting it worry me. I don't consider this to be a game.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 4:50pm)
So when you arrogantly deny them the right to enjoy my company at Wikiversity, you are engaging in an unbecoming practice that jeopardizes your stature as an accomplished, mature, and professional academic. Instead, you come across as the character, Javert, in Les Miserables. Adam, that is not the reputation you want to earn if you want to make a career out of your studies in Engineering.
I appreciate your concern but I have no "stature as an accomplished, mature, and professional academic" to lose. Whilst I appreciate that certain individuals in the community may be interested in hearing from you, if they really want to do so they can contact you off-wiki. For the moment, I don't see community support to unblock you and so it is right that you don't evade that block against the wishes of the community.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 4:50pm)
It pains me more than I can say when I see you disrupt the academic activities of your fellow Wikiversitans who have expressly invited me to work with them on their projects, discussions, and seminars there. In a word, Adam, it's unprofessional and unbecoming conduct of someone who has the responsibility of husbanding an authentic learning community.
You are right that I have a responsibility to the community. At the moment it doesn't seem the community wants you unblocked.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 4:50pm)
Think it over carefully, Adam, because it's your future that hangs in the balance. Abd and I are at retirement age. We have a lot less at stake than you do. You can jerk us around if you like, but it will only make you look like a jerk, and that ain't good for your career.
How exactly would you suggest that my activities on Wikiversity are going to impact on my career? That has nothing to do with you or anyone else.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:32pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:31pm)
I take it you do not intend to build a career out of your B.Eng.
Why?
You said you have no stature as an accomplished, mature, and professional academic, and you indicate no interest or desire to achieve such a stature. Rather you indicate your preference is to play the role of Javert at Wikiversity.
OK. It's your suicide mission. If that's what you want, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your religious convictions?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:20am)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 5th July 2010, 9:31am)
Please provide links to what you view as "hostile".
That you can't work that out yourself is exactly the problem.
You raised the issue of "hostility" and I addressed it in a general way. You did not seem satisfied by what I had to say, so I thought it might be constructive to examine some specific examples of what you mean by "hostility". This is a normal form of human communication: I ask you to explain what is on your mind, but rather than respond, you seem to expect me to read your mind.
Maybe we can start a new Wikiversity learning project about how to read minds. A few case studies are already at hand...times when folks like Jimbo and SBJ refused to answer my questions. There seems to be a strange pattern...a special group of Wikiversity participants who are free to say and do anything and who do not have to follow policy or account for their actions...a few folks who even have the luxury of expecting other people to read their mind.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:41pm)
You said you have no stature as an accomplished, mature, and professional academic, and you indicate no interest or desire to achieve such a stature. Rather you indicate your preference is to play the role of Javert at Wikiversity.
My responsibility as a custodian at Wikiversity is to the community and the project. Like I've said, my perception at the moment is that the community is relativity happy with your block. As such, I will continue to enforce it. If the community changes their view then I will respect it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:08pm)
Whilst I appreciate that certain individuals in the community may be interested in hearing from you, if they really want to do so they can contact you off-wiki. For the moment, I don't see community support to unblock you and so it is right that you don't evade that block against the wishes of the community.
This is an accurate assessment of the situation at present. "Right," however, is relative, it would depend on the contract between Moulton and the community (and the WMF). Generally speaking, it would appear that whatever contract might have existed was voided by the bans.
In other words, there is no unilateral "right" with respect to Moulton. He can sock all he likes, and unless he crosses certain legal lines, Wikiversity and the WMF have no moral rights over him. It can also be argued that the wikis violated certain implied contracts of fairness; it's a difficult legal position, though.
What I'm attempting to do is to deal with one narrow part of this: what the community wishes. That's not easy to assess on wikis, because of participation bias. But when there is 100% consensus for some action, it's clear that this may be treated as consensus, pending some reversal that might happen on broader consideration.
The paradox here is that banned users are expected to conform to wiki guidelines, and the attempt will be made to punish them, effectively, if they do not. That is, the "violations" -- which are unilaterally defined by one side here -- become new reasons for the ban. It's circular.
We need to back up, and without prejudice examine this situation de novo. An illegitimate ban may uncover reasons to ban that were not present, or it can cause the development of rationalizations for the ban. To move beyond this, the original ban must become irrelevant. And that won't happen as long as tendentious debate continues over whether or not the ban was "right."
This is actually fairly widely understood; it is why admin bias is hardly ever a good reason to put up with an unblock template. Accusing the admin of bias, in fact, demonstrates that the blocked editor doesn't understand what's truly important, and is caught in a personality conflict. Some admins treat that as a Bad Sign, but it was more common to understand it as a normal human reaction. That's why an admin should never up the ante and Talk page block someone for insulting the blocking admin or even the whole damn admin corps. Outing, however, starts to cross another boundary.
Moulton, if you care about Adambro and his academic future, then email him or PM him privately. Instead, you do it in public, he's quite likely to discount it as simply another battle tactic. That's how people work, and perhaps it's about time you came to understand that this is normal and even functional behavior, under some circumstances. Now, should I tell you this privately instead of publicly? Maybe. What would you prefer?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:26pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:06pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:41pm)
OK. It's your suicide mission.
Why is it a "suicide mission"?
I take it you are not familar with Les Miserables.
I'm afraid not though I appreciate the reference now. I'm currently reading 1984 at the moment. Would you suggest Les Miserables is a book worth reading?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 11:42am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:26pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:06pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:41pm)
OK. It's your suicide mission.
Why is it a "suicide mission"?
I take it you are not familar with Les Miserables.
I'm afraid not though I appreciate the reference now. I'm currently reading 1984 at the moment. Would you suggest Les Miserables is a book worth reading?
Only if you don't mind a trip through the sewers of post-Nepoleonic France, literally and figuratively.
The Count of Monte Cristo is a much better book! Unlike the uncut version of Moby Dick, even the uncut version of Count is a page-turner.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:08pm)
Whilst I appreciate that certain individuals in the community may be interested in hearing from you, if they really want to do so they can contact you off-wiki. For the moment, I don't see community support to unblock you and so it is right that you don't evade that block against the wishes of the community.
This is an accurate assessment of the situation at present.
No it isn't. Go say hello to WAS 4.250. Ask him about communicating off-wiki, via E-Mail, IRC, or on discussion forums like this one.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:42pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:26pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:06pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:41pm)
OK. It's your suicide mission.
Why is it a "suicide mission"?
I take it you are not familar with Les Miserables.
I'm afraid not though I appreciate the reference now. I'm currently reading 1984 at the moment. Would you suggest Les Miserables is a book worth reading?
The musical is a quicker way to the basics of the story. I did find Les Mis an interesting book. The essential premise is that of a sinner finding redemption and his jailer never being able to come to terms with this. The shocking realisation that the fundamentals of his moral world were in doubt drove the jailer to suicide. It is a heavily religious story, but survivable for all that - I'm not usually one for classics, though I did enjoy that one about a bloke stuffing someone up a chimney because he thought himself above the dreary, ordinary world - all rather Wikipedian.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:55pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:08pm)
Whilst I appreciate that certain individuals in the community may be interested in hearing from you, if they really want to do so they can contact you off-wiki. For the moment, I don't see community support to unblock you and so it is right that you don't evade that block against the wishes of the community.
This is an accurate assessment of the situation at present.
No it isn't. Go say hello to WAS 4.250. Ask him about communicating off-wiki, via E-Mail, IRC, or on discussion forums like this one.
What is wrong with that assessment? I've acknowledged that some, e.g. WAS 4.250 as you have suggested, may be interested in hearing from you on Wikiversity. It is interesting to note however that WAS 4.250 hasn't said much in support of an unblock as of yet. Also, just as the community is bigger than me, it is also bigger than WAS 4.250. It is for the community as whole to decide whether they wish for you to contribute.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:08pm)
Whilst I appreciate that certain individuals in the community may be interested in hearing from you, if they really want to do so they can contact you off-wiki. For the moment, I don't see community support to unblock you and so it is right that you don't evade that block against the wishes of the community.
"Right," however, is relative, it would depend on the contract between Moulton and the community (and the WMF). Generally speaking, it would appear that whatever contract might have existed was voided by the bans.
Jimbo abrogated any pre-existing terms of engagement when he came into WV and dictated that I be banned (or else he would shut down WV). The community had nothing to do with it, other than quaking in their boots that Jimbo would carry out his threat if they didn't buckle.
When Jimbo pulled the same stunt a few months ago, SBJ resigned and started a new site.
Note bena. The community had nothing to do with it.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
In other words, there is no unilateral "right" with respect to Moulton. He can sock all he likes, and unless he crosses certain legal lines, Wikiversity and the WMF have no moral rights over him. It can also be argued that the wikis violated certain implied contracts of fairness; it's a difficult legal position, though.
Jimbo abrogated whatever community norms had evolved at WV prior to his unprecedented intervention. At that point, WV became a pre-Hammurabic tribal ochlocracy, and the governance model devolved into lunatic drama.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
What I'm attempting to do is to deal with one narrow part of this: what the community wishes. That's not easy to assess on wikis, because of participation bias. But when there is 100% consensus for some action, it's clear that this may be treated as consensus, pending some reversal that might happen on broader consideration.
There is no community left there, Abd. Jimbo sundered the community, and it melted away.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
The paradox here is that banned users are expected to conform to wiki guidelines, and the attempt will be made to punish them, effectively, if they do not. That is, the "violations" -- which are unilaterally defined by one side here -- become new reasons for the ban. It's circular.
There aren't any "wiki guidelines" to conform to. There is just Jimbo's dictats, which were laid bare for all to see in his most recent intervention there.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
We need to back up, and without prejudice examine this situation de novo. An illegitimate ban may uncover reasons to ban that were not present, or it can cause the development of rationalizations for the ban. To move beyond this, the original ban must become irrelevant. And that won't happen as long as tendentious debate continues over whether or not the ban was "right."
Jimbo never completed even the requirement of the First Law of Hammurabi's Code, which is to prove a charge for which the penalty is banishment. Here was a teachable moment and what did Jimbo do? He taught pre-Hammurabic tribalism. What kind of 21st Century learning community is that, pray tell?
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
This is actually fairly widely understood; it is why admin bias is hardly ever a good reason to put up with an unblock template. Accusing the admin of bias, in fact, demonstrates that the blocked editor doesn't understand what's truly important, and is caught in a personality conflict. Some admins treat that as a Bad Sign, but it was more common to understand it as a normal human reaction. That's why an admin should never up the ante and Talk page block someone for insulting the blocking admin or even the whole damn admin corps. Outing, however, starts to cross another boundary.
The admins who blocked me either failed to post a reason at all, or posted a randomly chosen one that was manifestly specious and absurd on the face of it. If you don't believe me, ask JWSchmidt to show the evidence.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
Moulton, if you care about Adambro and his academic future, then email him or PM him privately. Instead, you do it in public, he's quite likely to discount it as simply another battle tactic. That's how people work, and perhaps it's about time you came to understand that this is normal and even functional behavior, under some circumstances. Now, should I tell you this privately instead of publicly? Maybe. What would you prefer?
Adam has made it abundantly clear that he has no use for the likes of me, or for any educational guidance or coaching from me. So he's on his own. And may Victor Hugo have mercy on his soul.
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:26pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:06pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:41pm)
OK. It's your suicide mission.
Why is it a "suicide mission"?
I take it you are not familar with Les Miserables.
I'm afraid not though I appreciate the reference now. I'm currently reading 1984 at the moment. Would you suggest Les Miserables is a book worth reading?
You can read it, watch the classic movie (with Charles Laughton as Javert) or find a newer video with the more modern stageplay production. Or you can just read the plot summary.
Basically, you have cast yourself in the role of Javert, and you have cast me in the role of Jean Valjean. In other words, you have plunked yourself into a classic drama that doesn't end well. And if you continue to play the role of Javert (with someone else in the role of Jean Valjean the next time), the tragic outcome is inevitable.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 8:21pm)
Basically, you have cast yourself in the role of Javert, and you have cast me in the role of Jean Valjean. In other words, you have plunked yourself into a classic drama that doesn't end well. And if you continue to play the role of Javert (with someone else in the role of Jean Valjean the next time), the tragic outcome is inevitable.
What would you suggest is the wiki equivalent of jumping in the Seine then?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 4:02pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 8:21pm)
Basically, you have cast yourself in the role of Javert, and you have cast me in the role of Jean Valjean. In other words, you have plunked yourself into a classic drama that doesn't end well. And if you continue to play the role of Javert (with someone else in the role of Jean Valjean the next time), the tragic outcome is inevitable.
What would you suggest is the wiki equivalent of jumping in the Seine then?
It's an expression of remorse over having wasted one's own time and energy wrongly persecuting a basically decent and innocent man who might otherwise have made an excellent friend and mentor.
Are you familiar with the dismissive phrase "go jump in the lake"? If so, do you know where it comes from?
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:19pm)
In this case, it's an observation of recurring practices (which plausibly derive from a persistent state of mind). I don't know that I could accurately recite an account of his desires, beliefs, or intentions, but the pattern of his practices is laid bare for all to see. And (as I see it) that pattern is to summarily deny the rights of his fellow scholars to freely choose their partners in study and their modes of discussion.
OK, you can say "It appears to me from many things I have seen that he has no respect for at least some scholars." But no more than that.
QUOTE
WV is a 501c3 tax exempt educational project funded by donors.
More fool the donors. But it's still a third-rate little web site not worth worrying about, and to compare it to what King George is alleged to have done is melodramatically hyperbolic.
QUOTE
I actually haven't said that much about Adam yet.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Somey, I think you will need some more disk space when Moulton does say a lot about Adam!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:26pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:19pm)
In this case, it's an observation of recurring practices (which plausibly derive from a persistent state of mind). I don't know that I could accurately recite an account of his desires, beliefs, or intentions, but the pattern of his practices is laid bare for all to see. And (as I see it) that pattern is to summarily deny the rights of his fellow scholars to freely choose their partners in study and their modes of discussion.
OK, you can say "It appears to me from many things I have seen that he has no respect for at least some scholars." But no more than that.
The only ones that matter are the resident scholars on WV, over which Adam is exercising power to extend or deny them the right to freely engage in peaceable study with collaborating partners of their choice. Here, Adam is systematically denying all resident scholars the right to collaborate on-wiki with the likes of me or Greg. This matters because Geoff Plourde, for example, had asked me to be the visiting guest scholar in one of the modules that he is hosting. (He's not the only example, but he's the most straightforward example.)
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:26pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:19pm)
WV is a 501c3 tax exempt educational project funded by donors.
More fool the donors. But it's still a third-rate little web site not worth worrying about, and to compare it to what King George is alleged to have done is melodramatically hyperbolic.
It's not about melodrama, it's about looking for a well-known model to use as a template or example to guide one's thinking on an issue.
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 5th July 2010, 5:26pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:19pm)
I actually haven't said that much about Adam yet.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Somey, I think you will need some more disk space when Moulton does say a lot about Adam!
I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. But when someone is systematically abusive to the point where they jeopardize their own reputation as well as the reputation of the system they are managing, it can become a significant story.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:21pm)
Basically, you have cast yourself in the role of Javert, and you have cast me in the role of Jean Valjean. In other words, you have plunked yourself into a classic drama that doesn't end well. And if you continue to play the role of Javert (with someone else in the role of Jean Valjean the next time), the tragic outcome is inevitable.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
Isn't there someplace on WV where you can start something like an RFC asking for access, Moulton? AFAICT, the Colloquium page is the only place to do it. I guess as long as they tolerate Adam and his arrogant twittery, not much will happen.
At least, Abd or someone could go there and ask to have Adam's WV power limited.
PS, this was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen on a WV page. Apparently, "incivility" on any WMF project includes linking to a personal blog wherein Jimbo is criticized. Only on a WMF server is it a capital crime to criticize Jimbo. Well, is it Jimbo's private site or not? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:09pm)
I'm not usually one for classics, though I did enjoy that one about a bloke stuffing someone up a chimney because he thought himself above the dreary, ordinary world - all rather Wikipedian.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 5th July 2010, 6:33pm)
Isn't there someplace on WV where you can start something like an RFC asking for access, Moulton? AFAICT, the Colloquium page is the only place to do it.
Since my login is SUL locked, I can only edit there as an IP, provided I cycle my DSL IP to a fresh one that isn't already blocked by Adam Brookes. But Adam has also semi-protected the Colloquium page, meaning it cannot be edited except by someone with an unblocked logged-in account. So the answer is no, I cannot do that, even if I wanted to.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 5th July 2010, 6:33pm)
I guess as long as they tolerate Adam and his arrogant twittery, not much will happen.
Correct. And there really isn't much of a community left there to work these issues. Abd is about the only who is really trying. Ottava is slightly embarrassed by it all, but not enough to work the issues at their root.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 5th July 2010, 6:33pm)
At least, Abd or someone could go there and ask to have Adam's WV power limited.
Abd has only been a Custodian a very short time, and has not built up enough political capital to play that kind of leadership role yet. There really isn't anyone left in power to work through a normal process of checks and balances. Adam can be as despotic as he likes, and no one will lift a finger to stop him.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 5th July 2010, 6:33pm)
PS, this was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen on a WV page. Apparently, "incivility" on any WMF project includes linking to a personal blog wherein Jimbo is criticized. Only on a WMF server is it a capital crime to criticize Jimbo. Well, is it Jimbo's private site or not? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)
Actually, at the time, Jimbo wasn't even mentioned on that blog. It was the IDCab editors whom I had lampooned in my atrocious song parodies. Jimbo was intervening at their behest. I don't know which specific IDCab editor contacted him, but my best guess is that it was FeloniousMonk.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 3:53pm)
Actually, at the time, Jimbo wasn't even mentioned on that blog. It was the IDCab editors whom I had lampooned in my atrocious song parodies. Jimbo was intervening at their behest. I don't know which specific IDCab editor contacted him, but my best guess is that it was FeloniousMonk.
Hell, that's even more outrageous. An MIT Media Lab scholar was banned from Wikiversity....by an office drone who works for Macys Department Stores. By lying to Jimbo. And Jimbo fell for it, and is still falling for it.
Okay, here's my advice: give it up, Moulton. Go to Netknowledge instead. Clearly, Jimbo wants to run Wikiversity into the ground, and he evidently still has plenty of stupid young men willing to do the dirty work, and take the blame for him.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 5th July 2010, 11:41pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:09pm)
I'm not usually one for classics, though I did enjoy that one about a bloke stuffing someone up a chimney because he thought himself above the dreary, ordinary world - all rather Wikipedian.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 3:12pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:55pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:42pm)
QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:08pm)
Whilst I appreciate that certain individuals in the community may be interested in hearing from you, if they really want to do so they can contact you off-wiki. For the moment, I don't see community support to unblock you and so it is right that you don't evade that block against the wishes of the community.
This is an accurate assessment of the situation at present.
No it isn't. Go say hello to WAS 4.250. Ask him about communicating off-wiki, via E-Mail, IRC, or on discussion forums like this one.
What is wrong with that assessment? I've acknowledged that some, e.g. WAS 4.250 as you have suggested, may be interested in hearing from you on Wikiversity. It is interesting to note however that WAS 4.250 hasn't said much in support of an unblock as of yet. Also, just as the community is bigger than me, it is also bigger than WAS 4.250. It is for the community as whole to decide whether they wish for you to contribute.
What's wrong with is that it's simply false. While Geoff Plourde can (and does) communicate with me off-wiki, his course is carried out on-wiki, and that is where his study group will convene when they take up the topic where Geoff has asked me to be the guest scholar.
WAS 4.250 only communicates with people on-wiki, refusing to use E-Mail, IRC or off-wiki forums (like this one). The bulk of my personal talk pages contain wonderful conversations between me and WAS 4.250 over a wide range of fascinating subjects.
Finally (as you know), there is a discussion underway on the Colloquium regarding issues arising in my case and Greg's case, both of which link back to Jimbo's out-of-process edicts, bypassing the community governance processes.
It is customary in civilized society, Adam, to afford a person the courtesy of responding to his critics, in the venue where those criticisms are levied.
When I levied criticisms against you, Adam, you quickly came here to defend yourself and to cross-examine me and any others who chimed in with comments regarding your character, conduct, or qualifications.
I am frankly appalled that you have not seen fit to afford me and Greg the reciprocal courtesies.
Even a criminal psychopath is entitled to face his accusers and cross examine the witnesses against him.
My sin was to post some silly song parodies on my personal blog and to address scholars by their real name (a sign of respect in authentic academic cultures).
And yet you arrogantly deny me and Greg one of the most fundamental of all human and civil rights -- one dating back to the Magna Carta.
For the life of me, Adam, I cannot fathom what you imagine yourself to be learning and teaching when it comes to fundamental lessons of 21st Century Civics.
Oh, and by the way, you overlooked a question I had asked you earlier. Have you, perchance, read the Wikiversity Policy Page on Civility?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:04pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 3:53pm)
Actually, at the time, Jimbo wasn't even mentioned on that blog. It was the IDCab editors whom I had lampooned in my atrocious song parodies. Jimbo was intervening at their behest. I don't know which specific IDCab editor contacted him, but my best guess is that it was FeloniousMonk.
Hell, that's even more outrageous. An MIT Media Lab scholar was banned from Wikiversity....by an office drone who works for Macys Department Stores. By lying to Jimbo. And Jimbo fell for it, and is still falling for it.
If you want to see what Jimbo understood when he intervened over the issue of my song parodies, you can read it here. Therein you will learn the motivation for Jimbo blocking me on Wikiversity. By the way, Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) also directly contacted the MIT Media Lab over the issue of the song parodies. That's why I think he was the one who contacted Jimbo.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 5th July 2010, 7:04pm)
Okay, here's my advice: give it up, Moulton. Go to Netknowledge instead. Clearly, Jimbo wants to run Wikiversity into the ground, and he evidently still has plenty of stupid young men willing to do the dirty work, and take the blame for him.
Oh, I'm already SBJ's second-in-command on NetKnowledge.
The only reason I still have any interest in WV is because I promised Geoff Plourde I would work with him on his module on "Types and Shadows" and because WAS 4.250 is still there (and unlikely to migrate to NetKnowledge).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 5th July 2010, 4:09pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 5th July 2010, 11:41pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 5th July 2010, 12:09pm)
I'm not usually one for classics, though I did enjoy that one about a bloke stuffing someone up a chimney because he thought himself above the dreary, ordinary world - all rather Wikipedian.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Diego, what will you be doing to help restore a sense of community empowerment over interloping tyrants, vis-a-vis an unlock of my account on Wikiversity?
Diego, what will you be doing to help restore a sense of community empowerment over interloping tyrants, vis-a-vis an unlock of my account on Wikiversity?
The only solution I can think of is renaming your account to another name of your choice. I don't think there should be further problems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
And, I will try to change some people's mind.
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 5th July 2010, 10:37pm)
Oh, it's definitely an adventure. You get to meet the Mad Hatter, the Dormouse, and the Red Queen, among others. Welcome, Diego.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(diegogrez @ Tue 6th July 2010, 12:25am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 5th July 2010, 11:05pm)
Diego, what will you be doing to help restore a sense of community empowerment over interloping tyrants, vis-a-vis an unlock of my account on Wikiversity?
The only solution I can think of is renaming your account to another name of your choice. I don't think there should be further problems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
I'm proposing now that Thekohser start up a new account, not edit with it, and let me know the account name. I will block it, leaving Talk page access. He will not have violated any ban by doing this, and it gets around the global lock, legitimately. I rather doubt we will encounter trouble, but, look, we are united on allowing Thekohser to at least begin negotiating, I don't see a single Wikiversitan arguing that he should not be allowed to do this. So if there is a problem from "on high," assuming that Thekohser doesn't create some difficulty by going too far with something on his talk page, we will have a very clear situation to appeal, through due process (steward request page asking for unlock, ombudsman, and the WMF foundation itself).
I'd like to know if Wikiversity is free, as a community, to make its own decisions, particularly if care is taken not to impact the rights of other wikis. If it's not, my own long-term participation is at risk. Wikiversity has already lost many long-term contributors over the mess. They were not driven away by Thekohser, nor by Moulton, for that matter.
I'm proposing now that Thekohser start up a new account, not edit with it, and let me know the account name. I will block it, leaving Talk page access. He will not have violated any ban by doing this, and it gets around the global lock, legitimately. I rather doubt we will encounter trouble, but, look, we are united on allowing Thekohser to at least begin negotiating, I don't see a single Wikiversitan arguing that he should not be allowed to do this. So if there is a problem from "on high," assuming that Thekohser doesn't create some difficulty by going too far with something on his talk page, we will have a very clear situation to appeal, through due process (steward request page asking for unlock, ombudsman, and the WMF foundation itself).
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 6th July 2010, 12:09am)
I'm proposing now that Thekohser start up a new account, not edit with it, and let me know the account name. I will block it, leaving Talk page access. He will not have violated any ban by doing this, and it gets around the global lock, legitimately.
I don't want anyone getting the idea that I find any of this even the slightest bit compelling or even interesting, but that's not how Jimbo & Co. are going to see it. And I assume Mr. Adambro here will tell them what's going on, so it's not like you'll avoid scrutiny - WV doesn't get even enough edits these days for something like that to be buried in a "Recent Changes" listing.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Abd, you really do need to knock off all this pussyfooting and take the bull by the horns.
Wikiversity is chartered as an educational project under the aegis of the WMF Mission Statement.
Among the important concepts to teach young scholars like Adam Brookes, Diego Grez, and that little girl in Africa are concepts of Good Government, as taught in Civics, World History and courses like that.
Good Government includes such important concepts as Due Process, Impartial Justice, Evidence-Based Judgments, and the like.
Due Process means that when someone is accused of a transgression, the accuser must actually prove the charges, supported by credible evidence, before an impartial judge or jury. The defendant has a right to face his accusers, to mount a defense, to cross-examine witnesses, and to challenge both the evidence and the law or policy upon which their fate is being judged.
When I criticized Adam Brookes in this thread, he quickly showed up here to present his defense, to challenge the evidence, to cross-examine those of us who levied charges and criticisms against him. And I, for one, welcomed his presence here. And I went to great lengths (some would say tedious lengths) to respond to every question he put to me. I did that because I wanted Adam to learn to appreciate the concept of Due Process -- a concept he does not yet see fit to extend to the likes of me or Greg in the hallowed halls of Wikiversity.
Neither Adam nor Diego were present when Jimbo came galumphing into Wikiversity like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland and imposed a sentence on absurd charges, without even a mock trial, let alone a genuine one.
What the hell is Jimbo teaching impressionable youth like Adam Brookes, Diego Grez, and that little girl in Africa, under the aegis and funding of WMF?
Abd, let's not teach subtle chess games to outmaneuver Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard. Let us teach 21st Century principles of managerial ethics, good government, due process, evidence-driven judgments, scientific reasoning, and fair play in the game of life.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 10:55pm)
It's not about melodrama, it's about looking for a well-known model to use as a template or example to guide one's thinking on an issue.
Let's look for a better parallel. How about Mao-Ze Dong (or whatever is the in spelling of that name this week)? We clearly have a Cultural Revolution going on at Wikiversity. Quite a lot of people died in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That perfectly mirrors the blocks and desysops at Wikiversity, doesn't it?
[Disclaimer: I don't for a moment endorse whatever is wrong at Wikiversity. I'm just trying to get things into perspective. And remember that worse things go on at Wikipedia.]
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 7:16am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 10:55pm)
It's not about melodrama, it's about looking for a well-known model to use as a template or example to guide one's thinking on an issue.
Let's look for a better parallel. How about Mao-Ze Dong (or whatever is the in spelling of that name this week)? We clearly have a Cultural Revolution going on at Wikiversity. Quite a lot of people died in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That perfectly mirrors the blocks and desysops at Wikiversity, doesn't it?
[Disclaimer: I don't for a moment endorse whatever is wrong at Wikiversity. I'm just trying to get things into perspective. And remember that worse things go on at Wikipedia.]
It might well be a more precise parallel, but I confess to being largely unfamiliar with the story of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, so I would not be able to rely on that model without first spending considerable time learning it.
Because last weekend was US Independence Day, associated with the publication of the Declaration of Independence, and since I am an American and Adam is British, it occurred to me that the example of King George III would be more familiar to both of us, as our two countries have a common history associated with the publication of that document.
The only other common parallel that comes to mind is the story of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, since that is a lampoon on familiar politics corresponding to the lunatic social drama in WikiCulture.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 12:26pm)
The only other common parallel that comes to mind is the story of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, since that is a lampoon on familiar politics corresponding to the lunatic social drama in WikiCulture.
Er, no. You mean the Queen of Hearts, I suspect. She ran around crying "Off with his head" at the slightest pretext. The Red Queen is in Alice Through the Looking Glass.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 7:36am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 12:26pm)
The only other common parallel that comes to mind is the story of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, since that is a lampoon on familiar politics corresponding to the lunatic social drama in WikiCulture.
Er, no. You mean the Queen of Hearts, I suspect. She ran around crying "Off with his head" at the slightest pretext. The Red Queen is in Alice Through the Looking Glass.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 6:16am)
Let's look for a better parallel. How about Mao-Ze Dong (or whatever is the in spelling of that name this week)? We clearly have a Cultural Revolution going on at Wikiversity. Quite a lot of people died in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That perfectly mirrors the blocks and desysops at Wikiversity, doesn't it?
Personally, I wouldn't use this analogy - true, as many as 10 million (that's the most extreme high estimate, btw) died in the GPCR, which was essentially a massive purge of "Western-influenced" intellectuals and (not necessarily "Western-influenced") political dissenters, along with just about anybody who refused to join a farming commune. But compared to the overall Chinese population, 10 million is actually a pretty small percentage, putting aside the horror and inhumanity of it all for the time being.
IMO the preferred 20th-Century communist-related historical analogy for Wikiversity (from the WV dissenter's perspective) is probably the "Prague Spring" of 1968, which was followed by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
OTOH, if you're of the opinion that Wikiversity never really had much potential as a concept, then you'd probably compare it more to the invasion of Grenada by the US in 1983...?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
I asked that Moulton only stop using people's real life identities. Instead, both Moulton and JWS have expressed that it is impossible and unfair.
I do not think that my request is overburdening. I do not ask for them to do anything but switch one name for another.
The above is my line that I will not budge on, and I do not feel that it is a major problem, that it is "unfair", or anything like that. It is far more than I was ever offered, and far more than many others are ever offered.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The thing about finding the right metaphor, analogy, or reference model is that one needs to know the reference model very well, so that insights from it can be ported over to the new situation. I really don't know squat about those political upheavals, so they are not useful to me as reference models.
For me, Alice and the Queen of Hearts is a usable model, as is the Declaration of Independence. And as for Adambro, I can liken him to Javert. Beyond that, I don't have any other usable reference models at hand.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 11:16am)
[Disclaimer: I don't for a moment endorse whatever is wrong at Wikiversity. I'm just trying to get things into perspective. And remember that worse things go on at Wikipedia.]
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 6th July 2010, 3:36pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 10:52am)
For me, Alice and the Queen of Hearts is a usable model, as is the Declaration of Independence. And as for Adambro, I can liken him to Javert.
I think Mike.lifeguard is a better Javert.
Possibly so. But Mike.lifeguard tends to work behind the scenes rather than on-stage, like Adam.
Today, Diego Grez tried to neutralize the entries that Mike.lifeguard had placed in the global Titleblacklist page on Meta, by creating a local Titlewhitelist page on WikiVersity. But it now appears that, notwithstanding the MediaWiki documentation, the local Titlewhitelist page does not override the global Titleblacklist that Mike.lifeguard controls.
Also, I don't think Mike.lifeguard is capable of feeling remorse at the end of the day, and I don't see him ever washing away his sins by jumping in the lake.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:19pm)
Today, Diego Grez tried to neutralize the entries that Mike.lifeguard had placed in the global Titleblacklist page on Meta, by creating a local Titlewhitelist page on WikiVersity. But it now appears that, notwithstanding the MediaWiki documentation, the local Titlewhitelist page does not override the global Titleblacklist that Mike.lifeguard controls.
I wonder what Diego might say about working on a project system where "black" (darkness) triumphs over "white" (illumination).
Indeed, that's the Queen of Hearts. I just checked, and the Red Queen turns into a kitten.
I see. Evidently these two characters are often conflated. One is the tyrannical Queen of Hearts (of the pack of cards) and the other is the benign Red Queen on the chess board in the sequel. The Queen of Hearts is commonly (but erroneously) referred to as the Red Queen. Thanks for pointing that out.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th July 2010, 6:22pm)
OTOH, if you're of the opinion that Wikiversity never really had much potential as a concept, then you'd probably compare it more to the invasion of Grenada by the US in 1983...?
That's a poor analogy on at lease two grounds. Firstly, I have every confidence in the potential of Grenada, a very beautiful place (I've been there on holiday more than once).
Secondly, the US invasion had the full support of many senior Grenadans and the governments of neighbouring islands. Was the Jimbo raid welcomed by the local bureaucrats, or those of say Wikisource?
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 6th July 2010, 7:29pm)
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 11:16am)
[Disclaimer: I don't for a moment endorse whatever is wrong at Wikiversity. I'm just trying to get things into perspective. And remember that worse things go on at Wikipedia.]
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:52pm)
Was the Jimbo raid welcomed by the local bureaucrats?
There was actually a story to the effect that the WV bureaucrats called on Jimbo to get rid of me. The story didn't really make any sense, and eventually it was revealed that it was the other way around. Jimbo threatened to shut down Wikiversity if the bureaucrats interfered with his cameo appearance there. We now know that Jimbo appeared there at the request of IDCab (FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, et al).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 6th July 2010, 5:35pm)
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 6th July 2010, 6:49pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 6th July 2010, 10:50am)
I asked that Moulton only stop using people's real life identities. Instead, both Moulton and JWS have expressed that it is impossible and unfair.
Some symptoms of abuse of power by wikimedia sysops: 1) sysop ignores existing policy 2) sysop makes false claims about existing policy 3) sysop refuses to respond when challenged about #2 4) sysop prefers to invent rules on the fly rather than develop needed policies 5) sysop applies policies selectively to punish some, but lets his buddies off free
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:50pm)
I asked that Moulton only stop using people's real life identities. Instead, both Moulton and JWS have expressed that it is impossible and unfair.
Jeff, as you well know, Paul Mitchell, Tracy E. Walker, Tim Makinson, Bob Stevens, Ian Ramjohn, and Dave Souza were publishing false and defamatory articles about real people whose real names were the titles of the BLPs about them. I asked them to cease and desist from publishing false and defamatory material, and when they refused, I blew the whistle on them. That was the right thing to do, and I'd do it again anytime someone hiding behind a pseudonym acted as recklessly as they did.
And Jeff, if you persist in protecting such irresponsible people, I will include you in that practice of mine.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:19pm)
Today, Diego Grez tried to neutralize the entries that Mike.lifeguard had placed in the global Titleblacklist page on Meta, by creating a local Titlewhitelist page on WikiVersity. But it now appears that, notwithstanding the MediaWiki documentation, the local Titlewhitelist page does not override the global Titleblacklist that Mike.lifeguard controls.
Well, it's quite possible that the whitelist entries aren't correct. I haven't looked, I should. Not that I know regex, but I've had a tiny bit of experience with blacklists/whitelists, and local whitellists for spam, etc., are always a way to overcome either the meta blacklist or the local blacklist. If that's not working, it's a bug and should be reported.
That there is no local way to override the global account log is a problem as well, but one step at a time.
SUL was supposed to be a way to increase convenience, and global blocking to prevent massive vandalism and the like. I can accept that there can be a global lock for someone considered widely disruptive, but the local community should always be able to overcome it. If local admins are using their wiki to disrupt the whole foundation, that should be interdicted directly and openly, not surreptitiously by setting up undiscussed global locks, with no local way to override.
The global title blacklist is like the spam blacklist, it prevents certain edits from completing.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 8:01pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:50pm)
I asked that Moulton only stop using people's real life identities. Instead, both Moulton and JWS have expressed that it is impossible and unfair.
Jeff, as you well know, Paul Mitchell, Tracy E. Walker, Tim Makinson, Bob Stevens, Ian Ramjohn, and Dave Souza were publishing false and defamatory articles about real people whose real names were the titles of the BLPs about them. I asked them to cease and desist from publishing false and defamatory material, and when they refused, I blew the whistle on them. That was the right thing to do, and I'd do it again anytime someone hiding behind a pseudonym acted as recklessly as they did.
And Jeff, if you persist in protecting such irresponsible people, I will include you in that practice of mine.
Have I made myself clear?
By the idiosyncratic "rules" of the WMF wikis, Moulton is off-base. By normal human integrity, he's right. Now, what do we make of this? Communities have the right to regulate behavior within them, but there are certain intrinsic rights which transcend that. Moulton is writing from that level.
I don't believe that Moulton sufficiently respects the rights of the community, defective as the community process is, but I do understand why he often disregards them. This is actually an ancient philosophical conundrum.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I'm not sure when things changed, or why, but today I found I was able to log in as User:Moulton.
However there is no point in doing so, as the User:Moulton account cannot edit anything at all.
I registered the User:Caprice account to work with Geoff Plourde.
It is up to the responsible Custodians to decide if they want to bow down to the dictates of Jimbo or not.
Some of them (notably SBJ) decided not to bow down to Jimbo and left the project. And the few Custodians who are left seem disinclined to remediate the considerable damage left in the wake of Jimbo's unprecedented disruption of the community there.
So there really isn't anything substantive that I can contribute to the project, because there frankly isn't any project left to work on. It's just a pile of rubble.
But there are some people there whom I care about and I'm there to help them as best I can. So all I'll be doing is chatting a bit with people until Geoff is ready to host his course on Types and Shadows.
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 6th July 2010, 10:27pm)
I don't believe that Moulton sufficiently respects the rights of the community, defective as the community process is, but I do understand why he often disregards them. This is actually an ancient philosophical conundrum.
A gang of thugs in furry costumes is not a community. Authentic communities have authentic community norms.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
Hello Diego:
Thank you for visiting Wikipedia Review. As you can see, there are a LOT of people who are disgruntled with the way Wikipedia and its side-projects are run. Wikiversity was a valid idea, and it's a shame to watch this insane nonsense happening around it. But I'm afraid that Jimbo is a very dishonest man, and he has many dishonest friends on WMF projects--people who appear to be willing to tear down those projects, in order to maintain control, and to keep out honest people like Moulton and Thekohser. I hope you'll learn something from all this. If you could tell other users on WMF projects that there are real problems, and that Jimbo and his pals are trying to suppress all discussion of them, it would be much appreciated.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 46
Joined:
Member No.: 12,523
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th July 2010, 1:01am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:50pm)
I asked that Moulton only stop using people's real life identities. Instead, both Moulton and JWS have expressed that it is impossible and unfair.
Jeff, as you well know, Paul Mitchell, Tracy E. Walker, Tim Makinson, Bob Stevens, Ian Ramjohn, and Dave Souza were publishing false and defamatory articles about real people whose real names were the titles of the BLPs about them. I asked them to cease and desist from publishing false and defamatory material, and when they refused, I blew the whistle on them. That was the right thing to do, and I'd do it again anytime someone hiding behind a pseudonym acted as recklessly as they did.
And Jeff, if you persist in protecting such irresponsible people, I will include you in that practice of mine.
Have I made myself clear?
Was that a threat? I consider it somewhat ironic that Moulton, who wants to teach everyone else how to behave ethically on Wikis, thinks making threats is appropriate. If someone prefers to be known by their username then it is civil to respect that preference.
It is quite bizarre that some apparently need a policy before they are prepared to show a bit of respect for the wishes of fellow members of the community.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Adambro @ Wed 7th July 2010, 6:19am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 7th July 2010, 1:01am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:50pm)
I asked that Moulton only stop using people's real life identities. Instead, both Moulton and JWS have expressed that it is impossible and unfair.
Jeff, as you well know, Paul Mitchell, Tracy E. Walker, Tim Makinson, Bob Stevens, Ian Ramjohn, and Dave Souza were publishing false and defamatory articles about real people whose real names were the titles of the BLPs about them. I asked them to cease and desist from publishing false and defamatory material, and when they refused, I blew the whistle on them. That was the right thing to do, and I'd do it again anytime someone hiding behind a pseudonym acted as recklessly as they did.
And Jeff, if you persist in protecting such irresponsible people, I will include you in that practice of mine.
Have I made myself clear?
Was that a threat? I consider it somewhat ironic that Moulton, who wants to teach everyone else how to behave ethically on Wikis, thinks making threats is appropriate. If someone prefers to be known by their username then it is civil to respect that preference.
It is quite bizarre that some apparently need a policy before they are prepared to show a bit of respect for the wishes of fellow members of the community.
It's only a threat if one is so paranoid that they imagine that genuine scholars wear hooded masks and go around blithely lynching people they don't like.
Genuine scholars, Adam, publish their works under their real names, and they graciously accept comments, commentary, and feedback from other scholars in the wider academic community.
It would be ludicrous to imagine that an authentic learning community could be operated with the norms adopted by the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. So yes, the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan would feel threatened if someone working with Martin Luther King's Civil Rights Movement came along and unmasked him.
Adam, if you are going to use discretionary political power to systematically silence credentialed scholars and systematically disrupt the academic culture, on a site funded by 501c3 tax-exempt donations, you are not going to do so wearing a hooded mask.
In genuine academic cultures, recognizing an accomplished scholar and addressing him or her by their name and affiliation is a traditional sign of respect.
Ottava doesn't like it when Moulton mocks people and Moulton doesn't like it when Ottava blocks people. But Moulton mainly mocks people who block people, and Ottava mainly blocks people who mock people.
This talk will give an overview of Wikiversity's development as a Wikimedia project, detailing the problems that it has faced over its first few years, particularly the challenges of defining what a wiki-based space for learning should be and do.
QUOTE(Abstract)
Wikiversity is a Wikimedia project dedicated to learning. In this presentation, I will explore the struggles that Wikiversity has gone through in defining itself as a Wikimedia project. I will use these struggles to illuminate how Wikiversity has developed as a project and a community, and to make recommendations for its further development.
From its inception, Wikiversity’s scope has been negotiated by a wide range of people with a wide variety of perspectives. Originally incubated in Wikibooks and subsequently, after a lengthy discussion and definition phase, set up as a Wikimedia project, Wikiversity has been shaped by different views of what education is, and how a wiki-based, specifically Wikimedia, project should provide for educational activities. These different views and visions have revealed tensions in the question of what and who Wikiversity is for – and underlined the challenges in defining its scope.
I discuss two key critical questions regarding Wikiversity’s scope: what constitutes legitimate participation; and what is considered a legitimate learning resource or activity? Both questions shed light on the realities of organising an open space for learning, and the limits of such a space. Specifically, there is a tension between the various quality control mechanisms that have become part of Wikimedia practice (e.g. deciding that certain material does not meet a certain standard, and should therefore be deleted), and the material’s potential to be a shared object for an individual’s or group’s learning. Resolving this tension inevitably results in a trade-off between quality and inclusivity.
Wikiversity’s scope is wider than that of Wikipedia: as well as the development of content, it is about personal development and the development of a community of learners. I make the case, here, that Wikiversity can learn from innovations within Wikipedia’s development – for example, Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality (NPOV), and biographies of living persons (BLP) – but that it also needs to develop qualitatively new policies that adequately reflect its expansive scope.
Informing this presentation will be a variety of perspectives from academic literature on the practice, provision and organisation of education. Included in this framework will be theories of collaborative learning and democratic authority structures as they have informed the history of open education. This will represent a portion of my recently-completed PhD on the development of Wikiversity.
I've given you a proposal before but you balked. Let me give you one more straight forward:
I would unblock you (on this name). If you mention anyone's real life name, I will block you for 24 hours and disable your talk page access. If you bring up your old blocks, complain about Wikipedia, etc. I will block you for 24 hours but not disable your talk page access. If you sock during any of those 24 hour block periods then you will be indeffed once again. This probation will last for at least a year.
Would you be able to handle that? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? —Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
An anonymous poster from the Isle of Mann responds to Jeff's anankastic conditionals...
QUOTE(adsl217.28.5.247.manx.net)
Would anyone agree to that? I mean unless they were lying? "and if you complain about Wikipedia again you'll get sent to your room!" I mean honestly, what would you think of someone who didn't find this both insulting and demeaning? And what does he even get out of it - I don't even see how the block hurts him? 217.28.5.247 22:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the block helps me a great deal, in my role as an intrepid (if inept) science educator.
It's really hard for a science educator to attract anyone's attention. And yet I managed to attract the attention of both Adam Brookes and Jeffrey Peters.
But it's unlikely they will learn anything from me.
A colleague of mine who teaches public school is fond of saying, "Children don't learn from teachers they don't like."
Heh heh heh. You're good at this. (I can't think of anything that would provoke them more.)
Why would it provoke me?
Moulton posted my home address on WR 2 years ago. Since then, he lost his ability to really release anything shocking.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 7th July 2010, 11:28pm)
I think Wikiversity is going to be shut down within 2 weeks, judging by the chaos that's taken over there today.
Well, we lost much of our school access based on the porn stuff. Our reputation is screwed by being associated by people who say pedophiles aren't causing harm. And the whole college initiative is refusing to focus on any of the sister projects, so, we get snubbed there even though it was people from Wikiversity who kept pushing the idea over and over.
So, if they shut it down it is mostly just to bury the project that the supporters of the extremists over at Commons has been killing for a while.
I've given you a proposal before but you balked. Let me give you one more straight forward:
I would unblock you (on this name). If you mention anyone's real life name, I will block you for 24 hours and disable your talk page access. If you bring up your old blocks, complain about Wikipedia, etc. I will block you for 24 hours but not disable your talk page access. If you sock during any of those 24 hour block periods then you will be indeffed once again. This probation will last for at least a year.
Would you be able to handle that? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? —Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If you refuse to accept my deal, then that is your choice and your choice causes Plourde to suffer. I could have offered you no deal. If you are a starving man and someone offers you day old bread, do you whine about it being stale or do you eat it and be greatful that is what you get? Beggars can't be choosers. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to negotiate a mutually agreeable social contract that would restore this site to a collegial and congenial learning community, I am ready to discuss it when you are. But please understand that anankastic conditionals are an inappropriate method of arriving at a peaceable arrangement among collaborating scholars. —Barry Kort 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets be Hobbesian. You give up your right to kill people and that right goes to the Leviathan, i.e. the government, i.e. right now me. I then protect you from other people's right to kill you. Switch you "killing people" with using real names and bringing up old fights, and my keeping others from "killing you" as blocking you or attacking you for past things. That is a social contract. Can you agree to those terms or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, you silly goose. Go look at the avatar of Caprice — The Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel. The mob is supposed to cast out Caprice. It's right there in Exodus. Have you not discussed the Azazel Story with Geoff? We are re-enacting that very story even as we speak. --Barry Kort 02:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to abide by the terms of my social contract that is to be established in order to end this civil war and based on mutually protection? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you amenable to negotiating a mutually agreeable social contract, suitable for a respectable and responsible democratic learning community? —Barry Kort 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I put forth the terms of the only contract I am willing to offer as the Leviathan/Commonwealth in this situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As the Leviathan, you are proposing to protect Moulton from his would-be oppressors. But thou art Moulton's oppressor, Ottava. And that means you are running a lousy Protection Racket. Don't you consider it a tad inappropriate for you to convert your position of trust and authority here into a commonplace protection racket? --Montana Mouse 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 7th July 2010, 11:37pm)
Moulton posted my home address on WR 2 years ago.
Huh? Jeffrey, I might know your name, and the name of your university, but I don't even know the name of the town you live in, let alone your home address.
But presumably you know where you live. So do a search here and find it. Because I sure as hell can't find what you're talking about.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 7th July 2010, 8:37pm)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 7th July 2010, 9:24pm)
Heh heh heh. You're good at this. (I can't think of anything that would provoke them more.)
Why would it provoke me?
Not you, so much as Young Mr. Brookes. He's one of the most clueless WP admins I've ever seen, hands down.
QUOTE
As the Leviathan, you are proposing to protect Moulton from his would-be oppressors. But thou art Moulton's oppressor, Ottava. And that means you are running a lousy Protection Racket. Don't you consider it a tad inappropriate for you to convert your position of trust and authority here into a commonplace protection racket? --Montana Mouse 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikiversity * 09:06, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) MediaWiki:Titleblacklist ‎ (Undo revision 581786 by Diego Grez (talk) reinstate) (top) * 08:50, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Caprice ‎ (Protected "User talk:Caprice": this little experiment is over ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) (top) * 08:49, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Caprice ‎ (Reverted edits by 68.160.134.162 (Talk) to last version by Abd using rollback) * 08:45, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Wikiversity:Request custodian action ‎ (Reverted edits by 68.160.134.162 (Talk) to last version by Jtneill using rollback) (top) * 08:43, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (Reverted edits by 68.160.134.162 (Talk) to last version by Abd using rollback) (top) * 22:06, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Caprice ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: reinstate response) * 21:56, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Caprice ‎ (Reverted edits by Caprice (Talk) to last version by Adambro using rollback) * 21:38, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Caprice ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: new section) * 18:47, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Request custodian action ‎ (→User:JWSchmidt: +cmt) * 16:13, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:JWSchmidt ‎ (→24 Hour Block: +cmt) * 14:09, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Caprice ‎ (Undo revision 581948 by Caprice (talk) rv. this page is certainly not for commenting on other users) * 14:09, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Caprice ‎ (Reverted edits by Adambro (Talk) to last version by Caprice using rollback) * 14:09, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Caprice ‎ (Reverted edits by Caprice (Talk) to last version by Adambro using rollback) * 13:25, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ (rmv, not working) (top) * 13:23, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ (testing) * 13:17, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) m MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ (testing) * 12:40, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) m MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ (style) * 12:39, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ (testing) * 12:03, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ (rmv entry which I gather didn't work as intended) * 11:58, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Caprice ‎ (→Unblock?: either) * 11:49, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Caprice ‎ (→Unblock?: new section) * 10:07, 7 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (→Shall we request unlock for Thekohser?: +cmt) * 22:31, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (→213.204.193.2: +cmt) * 22:28, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (→213.204.193.2: +cmt) * 22:18, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (→213.204.193.2: new section) * 21:51, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (→User talk:Multon: +cmt) * 21:45, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (→User talk:Multon: new section) * 21:42, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Moulton ‎ (moved User talk:Multon to User talk:Moulton over redirect: no user by this name exists) * 21:41, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:94.75.219.73 ‎ (Reverted edits by 213.204.193.2 (Talk) to last version by Mu301 using rollback) (top) * 17:42, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: +cmt) * 15:42, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: +cmt) * 10:52, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) m User talk:Diego Grez ‎ (Reverted edits by 141.154.15.14 (Talk) to last version by Diego Grez using rollback) * 17:22, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: +cmt) * 11:11, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (Protected "Wikiversity:Colloquium": repeated target of blocked user ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)))) * 11:11, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (Reverted edits by 141.154.15.14 (Talk) to last version by Adambro using rollback) * 11:00, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (Reverted edits by 68.163.100.91 (Talk) to last version by Adambro using rollback) * 10:55, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Writing discipline specific research papers ‎ (Reverted edits by 121.97.231.67 (Talk) to last version by Abd using rollback) (top) * 10:23, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (Reverted edits by 68.163.100.91 (Talk) to last version by Adambro using rollback) * 09:14, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: +exp cmt) * 08:42, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (→User talk:Moulton: +cmt)
Special:Contributions is indeed an amazing feature. If you change limit=40 to limit=50 you can get a list of 50 of my contributions. Perhaps you fail to note that some of my recent contributions, including those to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ and the global title blacklist on Meta have been attempts to help you. That you can't help yourself by resisting the temptation to provoke other editors rather than focusing on negotiating an unblock is regrettable and it is a shame that you are apparently not really interested in contributing constructively. Well, this has been an educational experience for me. I've learnt not to bother wasting time trying to help you in the future.
Special:Contributions is indeed an amazing feature. If you change limit=40 to limit=50 you can get a list of 50 of my contributions. Perhaps you fail to note that some of my recent contributions, including those to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ and the global title blacklist on Meta have been attempts to help you. That you can't help yourself by resisting the temptation to provoke other editors rather than focusing on negotiating an unblock is regrettable and it is a shame that you are apparently not really interested in contributing constructively. Well, this has been an educational experience for me. I've learnt not to bother wasting time trying to help you in the future.
Adam, why, pray tell, did you disrupt the dialogue that I was having with James Neill last night? Do you have no respect for his right to communicate with me?
Just so you'll know, I E-Mailed him a follow-up after you reverted my last comment regarding the Karpman Drama Triangle -- a model that precisely characterizes the dysfunctional relationship between you, me, and James.
If you tell me your E-Mail, I'll send you a copy so that you can be aware of what I just sent him.
some of my recent contributions, including those to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist ‎ and the global title blacklist on Meta have been attempts to help you.
Just a random conjunction of extracts from recent posts.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people. It's probably not practical to save the project.
What worries me is that NetKnowledge is not a large enough lifeboat to save them all.
I'd see it more as the first lifeboat into the water (which is why I'm so big on documenting changes made on the server side, allowing the next boat to learn from our experiments). It's not really intended to save them all.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th July 2010, 8:40am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people. It's probably not practical to save the project. What worries me is that NetKnowledge is not a large enough lifeboat to save them all.
I'd see it more as the first lifeboat into the water (which is why I'm so big on documenting changes made on the server side, allowing the next boat to learn from our experiments). It's not really intended to save them all.
In that case, we need to document the architecture of the NetKnowledge Community Model and demonstrate it in action.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Yes, I know all about Tyciol. Alison spotted him registering just minutes before she did.
But guess what, Adam?
The first thing anyone has to do, before they can edit anything (even their own user page and talk page) is to confirm their e-mail address. The last I checked, Tyciol balked at confirming his email address (or maybe he put in a fake one, not realizing it has to be a working mailbox).
And even if he had confirmed a valid email, he would still have to go through the orientation process, agreeing to abide by the social contract, and finding two sponsoring mentors who would vouch for him. Well good luck there.
And so he registered, declined to confirm his email, and that was that.
I suppose you can characterize it as a "tendentious fight" if you like, but from my perspective, it was a good faith effort to have an honest, collegial discussion with them. But instead of responding as I had hoped and expected, they rudely reverted my posts and blocked my access. Elsewhere, off-wiki, they generally do conduct reasonably cordial dialogues with me. But for some unexplained reason, they feel compelled to treat me rudely here. I'd really like to know why that is. It's almost as if, when I come here, I enter a game world with combative players in costume, rather than sober scholars discussing topics of mutual interest. —Barry Kort 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Barry "Captain Renault" Kort; I'm shocked, shocked to find that game playing is going on in here! - WAS 4.250 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 4:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people.
What you need to do is work out a baptism algorithm and port it online. Could host it on Wikiversity or Netknowledge. Think of it as "immersion learning."
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:23am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 4:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people.
What you need to do is work out a baptism algorithm and port it online. Could host it on Wikiversity or Netknowledge. Think of it as "immersion learning."
You are closer to the truth than you might think. Have you looked into the origin, meaning, and purpose of the character, Caprice?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 8:31am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:23am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 4:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people.
What you need to do is work out a baptism algorithm and port it online. Could host it on Wikiversity or Netknowledge. Think of it as "immersion learning."
You are closer to the truth than you might think. Have you looked into the origin, meaning, and purpose of the character, Caprice?
You mean the late 70's Chevy aircraft carriers that got like six miles to a gallon?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 8:42am)
For a fleeting minute there, I thought you were serious.
You're right. A fleet would be a better choice of car for an evangelist.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock. I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing -- or if, indeed, he does understand it, changes his mind about how to proceed. It would require developing a capacity to engage in deliberative process, which requires civility and other restraints. Without that, it may be tragic, but so are many things in this world. He can work on NetKnowledge as long as that works, and his insights remain valuable and, as well, the history of what happened to him. But we can't move forward until he drops the offensive habits. It's just not possible, it would require practically everyone else to change, to defer to him and allow him what is allowed to practically nobody.
When we want to demand high ethical standards of others, or even to expose corruption, we must first rid ourselves of the corruption of self-centeredness and impatience and intolerance.
I've given you a proposal before but you balked. Let me give you one more straight forward:
I would unblock you (on this name). If you mention anyone's real life name, I will block you for 24 hours and disable your talk page access. If you bring up your old blocks, complain about Wikipedia, etc. I will block you for 24 hours but not disable your talk page access. If you sock during any of those 24 hour block periods then you will be indeffed once again. This probation will last for at least a year.
Would you be able to handle that? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? —Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:31am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:23am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 4:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people.
What you need to do is work out a baptism algorithm and port it online. Could host it on Wikiversity or Netknowledge. Think of it as "immersion learning."
You are closer to the truth than you might think. Have you looked into the origin, meaning, and purpose of the character, Caprice?
Caprice is from a French word and has nothing to do with Hebrew. The word it is connected to is Capro, which originates not in Hebrew but in Greco-Roman culture. Capricorn is the usage. The actual name of Capricon was not "Caprice" but Amalthea.
You've been told that before but your melodrama doesn't allow for accuracy.
By the way: "Some say it just means 'The Goat Departed' — the Goat Sent Away." Both are incorrect. The Hebrew has nothing actually about goats. The word means a "rough peak", and describes a mountain where they may or may not have sacrificed goats.
Sorry, I was referring to Azazel as meaning "rough peak". Moulton took it to mean the "Scapegoat" idea, which was a mistranslation of the Hebrew. Caprice has no connection to Azazel except to Moulton.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:44am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:31am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:23am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 4:36am)
I'm mostly interested in saving the people.
What you need to do is work out a baptism algorithm and port it online. Could host it on Wikiversity or Netknowledge. Think of it as "immersion learning."
You are closer to the truth than you might think. Have you looked into the origin, meaning, and purpose of the character, Caprice?
Caprice is from a French word and has nothing to do with Hebrew. The word it is connected to is Capro, which originates not in Hebrew but in Greco-Roman culture. Capricorn is the usage. The actual name of Capricon was not "Caprice" but Amalthea.
You've been told that before but your melodrama doesn't allow for accuracy.
By the way: "Some say it just means 'The Goat Departed' — the Goat Sent Away." Both are incorrect. The Hebrew has nothing actually about goats. The word means a "rough peak", and describes a mountain where they may or may not have sacrificed goats.
Except words soak up meaning by usage. Now it means a mountain peak, a goat place and a Chevy. A Man of God has't give some thought about his ride.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 9:19am)
And even if he had confirmed a valid email, he would still have to go through the orientation process, agreeing to abide by the social contract, and finding two sponsoring mentors who would vouch for him.
Is that NetKnowledge's policy, Barry? Linky-doo, please? I'm just curious, not complaining. Sounds fairly reasonable to me.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:44pm)
Caprice is from a French word and has nothing to do with Hebrew. The word it is connected to is Capro, which originates not in Hebrew but in Greco-Roman culture. Capricorn is the usage. The actual name of Capricon was not "Caprice" but Amalthea.
The name "Caprice" is a reference to "Fantastic Goat Leap" and that's why I use it. The Goat for Azazel doesn't have a name in Exodus. It's just called the Goat for Expiation.
I needed to give the goat an actual name, so I adopted Caprice. Caprice and Azazel are not synonymous.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th July 2010, 1:00pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 9:19am)
And even if he had confirmed a valid email, he would still have to go through the orientation process, agreeing to abide by the social contract, and finding two sponsoring mentors who would vouch for him.
Is that NetKnowledge's policy, Barry? Linky-doo, please? I'm just curious, not complaining. Sounds fairly reasonable to me.
Yes, but Darkcode only got around to setting up the new "Member" User-Rights about a week ago. Someone who registers and email confirms is not a "Member" but has to be promoted by the sponsoring mentors. The discussion is here.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock.
That was someone else's suggestion, not mine. You won't find any thing authoritative from me suggesting I was looking to return to WV as a resident scholar. At best, I was looking for the policy and practice regarding guest scholars, per Geoff's request to me along those lines. Diego suggested using a new login, and I proposed Caprice, per Geoff's course on Types and Shadows.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing -- or if, indeed, he does understand it, changes his mind about how to proceed. It would require developing a capacity to engage in deliberative process, which requires civility and other restraints. Without that, it may be tragic, but so are many things in this world. He can work on NetKnowledge as long as that works, and his insights remain valuable and, as well, the history of what happened to him. But we can't move forward until he drops the offensive habits. It's just not possible, it would require practically everyone else to change, to defer to him and allow him what is allowed to practically nobody.
It's supposed to be impossible. If it were possible, there wouldn't be any need for the Story of Caprice to be told. If our culture did not perennially reprise the hoary scape-goat drama, we wouldn't need a module to teach about it.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
When we want to demand high ethical standards of others, or even to expose corruption, we must first rid ourselves of the corruption of self-centeredness and impatience and intolerance.
That's why Caprice is cast as the sacrificial goat, the Goat for Expiation.
I've given you a proposal before but you balked. Let me give you one more straight forward:
I would unblock you (on this name). If you mention anyone's real life name, I will block you for 24 hours and disable your talk page access. If you bring up your old blocks, complain about Wikipedia, etc. I will block you for 24 hours but not disable your talk page access. If you sock during any of those 24 hour block periods then you will be indeffed once again. This probation will last for at least a year.
Would you be able to handle that? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeff, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? —Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reprising and reposting that., Abd. Could you also go back and get that colloquy with "Leviathan" too?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Bullying
Ottava says that Lightspeed is the most prominent of the school computer programs that is blocking access to WMF-sponsored sites that lack adequate child protections policies and practices.
So far so good. But the site also has to demonstrate that the policies are not just window dressing, but employed in practice.
Which brings us around to Caprice. Now she's a storybook character, to be sure, but she's still a kid. Literally, she's a young female goat. So how does Ottava treat a powerless little kid?
I've given you a proposal before but you balked. Let me give you one more straight forward:
I would unblock you (on this name). If you mention anyone's real life name, I will block you for 24 hours and disable your talk page access. If you bring up your old blocks, complain about Wikipedia, etc. I will block you for 24 hours but not disable your talk page access. If you sock during any of those 24 hour block periods then you will be indeffed once again. This probation will last for at least a year.
Would you be able to handle that? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, if it pleases you to deny your fellow Wikiversitan, Geoffrey Plourde, the courtesy of hosting a course on Christian Values, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions? —Barry Kort 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If you refuse to accept my deal, then that is your choice and your choice causes Plourde to suffer. I could have offered you no deal. If you are a starving man and someone offers you day old bread, do you whine about it being stale or do you eat it and be greatful that is what you get? Beggars can't be choosers. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to negotiate a mutually agreeable social contract that would restore this site to a collegial and congenial learning community, I am ready to discuss it when you are. But please understand that anankastic conditionals are an inappropriate method of arriving at a peaceable arrangement among collaborating scholars. —Barry Kort 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets be Hobbesian. You give up your right to kill people and that right goes to the Leviathan, i.e. the government, i.e. right now me. I then protect you from other people's right to kill you. Switch you "killing people" with using real names and bringing up old fights, and my keeping others from "killing you" as blocking you or attacking you for past things. That is a social contract. Can you agree to those terms or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, you silly goose. Go look at the avatar of Caprice — The Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel. The mob is supposed to cast out Caprice. It's right there in Exodus. Have you not discussed the Azazel Story with Geoff? We are re-enacting that very story even as we speak. --Barry Kort 02:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to abide by the terms of my social contract that is to be established in order to end this civil war and based on mutually protection? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you amenable to negotiating a mutually agreeable social contract, suitable for a respectable and responsible democratic learning community? —Barry Kort 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I put forth the terms of the only contract I am willing to offer as the Leviathan/Commonwealth in this situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As the Leviathan, you are proposing to protect Moulton from his would-be oppressors. But thou art Moulton's oppressor, Ottava. And that means you are running a lousy Protection Racket. Don't you consider it a tad inappropriate for you to convert your position of trust and authority here into a commonplace protection racket? --Montana Mouse 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Abd, click on that link to the Democratic Learning Community.
You know, Ottava, last night a coupla really kid-friendly muppet characters named Caprice and Montana Mouse went there to help Wikiversitans learn. But you bullied them and shut them down.
So you reject the kid-safe, kid-friendly muppets and now you have the above to deal with.
Congratulations, Einstein. Now the log says you are protecting pornstars.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock. I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing...<snip>
You're a smart man, Abd. Barry is smarter. At least when it comes to recognizing what game's actually being played. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:26pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock. I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing...<snip>
You're a smart man, Abd. Barry is smarter. At least when it comes to recognizing what game's actually being played. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
You might notice that I wasn't promoting the return of Barry. Diego got fired up about it. If anyone got burned, it was him. I tried to make it work, partly for Wikiversity, partly for Diego, but Barry was completely uninterested in cooperation and simply wanted to set up a situation where Caprice would be crushed. It was easy for him to arrange that.
But it shows nothing about Wikiversity, about the WMF project set. Basically, sometimes when Jimbo et al blocked someone, they were right, even if for the wrong reasons. Stopped clock is right twice a day. Barry aroused a certain kind of suspicion that is very common, and it's functional. It can also exclude valuable people; had functional process been in place in 2008, it might have been possible to keep Barry ... and JWS.
As to smart, Barry may or may not be smarter than I, and it doesn't matter, I'm way beyond caring about that, because I work for someone or something far smarter than either of us. I get no special rights because of that, that's not how it works. But I get to watch some really spectacular stuff, on occasion.
Situation at Wikiversity now is that the door is open, possibly, for Greg Kohs to return, and the door is pretty firmly closed re Barry Kort, and this time the community is functioning with consensus. I'm aware that some important people have not commented, but that's the wikibreaks! This is *not* being imposed by meta or a certain steward. In other words, the process is starting to work. JWS may or may not be blocked soon. Sad case. I don't know if you can reach him, SBJ, I see you tried before, and I asked Barry to try to get him to tone it down, but I don't think that Barry is really any kind of team player. So, fine. Not everyone has to be a team player. Unless they are on a team.
Barry will do work at NetKnowledge, and hopefully some or most of it will be valuable. I intend to help there too, time permitting.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:58pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:26pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock. I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing...<snip>
You're a smart man, Abd. Barry is smarter. At least when it comes to recognizing what game's actually being played. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
You might notice that I wasn't promoting the return of Barry. Diego got fired up about it. If anyone got burned, it was him.
He didn't get burned. He got some valuable data that confirmed for him some theses about how the corrupt processes operate in WikiCulture. I daresay he become more enlightened.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:58pm)
I tried to make it work, partly for Wikiversity, partly for Diego, but Barry was completely uninterested in cooperation and simply wanted to set up a situation where Caprice would be crushed. It was easy for him to arrange that.
I'm not interested in cooperating with bullies, Abd. I'm interested in demonstrating how to deal with them.
So there was Caprice, a powerless kid. And Ottava crushed her.
What did Diego learn about Ottava?
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:58pm)
But it shows nothing about Wikiversity, about the WMF project set. Basically, sometimes when Jimbo et al blocked someone, they were right, even if for the wrong reasons. Stopped clock is right twice a day. Barry aroused a certain kind of suspicion that is very common, and it's functional. It can also exclude valuable people; had functional process been in place in 2008, it might have been possible to keep Barry ... and JWS.
Maybe I should drag that IRC log out of the 300 club so Abd and Diego can read it. (Mods, what is your suggestion?)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:58pm)
Situation at Wikiversity now is that the door is open, possibly, for Greg Kohs to return, and the door is pretty firmly closed re Barry Kort, and this time the community is functioning with consensus. I'm aware that some important people have not commented, but that's the wikibreaks! This is *not* being imposed by meta or a certain steward. In other words, the process is starting to work. JWS may or may not be blocked soon. Sad case. I don't know if you can reach him, SBJ, I see you tried before, and I asked Barry to try to get him to tone it down, but I don't think that Barry is really any kind of team player. So, fine. Not everyone has to be a team player. Unless they are on a team.
I see where Diego took exception (twice now) when Adam disrupted conversations on his (Diego's) talk page.
I'm basically an independent researcher, not a member of a lynch mob. There were quite a few people who were afraid to stand up to Jimbo and his lynch mob two years ago. Many of them became sick of that culture and left.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
Lets assume that Caprice is a child.
Wouldn't it be expect that a child would receive time outs and denied ice cream if they do not behave as the parental figure expects them to?
Furthermore, a goat isn't a child (possibly a "kid" but only in the goat sense). Regardless, its still Moulton. It always will be Moulton.
In 6 months I will give him the same offer, as I have been doing practically every 6 months. This was the first time I stated to open up a talk page though, but yeah.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 5:19am)
Lets assume that Caprice is a child.
Wouldn't it be expect that a child would receive time outs and denied ice cream if they do not behave as the parental figure expects them to?
Furthermore, a goat isn't a child (possibly a "kid" but only in the goat sense). Regardless, its still Moulton. It always will be Moulton.
In 6 months I will give him the same offer, as I have been doing practically every 6 months. This was the first time I stated to open up a talk page though, but yeah.
Here's an idea: Why don't you tell him he can register an account or post as an IP without any restrictions, and he'll be treated as any other editor, subject to the same rules as any other, and then if he abuses that privilege, you're done. You gave him a fair try and he abused it. He wouldn't be able to prodigiously blather with any moral force. You could just ignore him and be free, free at last!
On Wikiversity, lunatic drama is now more important than authentic academic content.
Case in point...
QUOTE(Mike Umbricht blocks every IP in New England)
# (Block log); 02:25 . . Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked every IP in New England (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts)
# (diff) (hist) . . m Wikiversity:Nominations for checkuser/Cormaggio‎; 02:25 . . (-2,090) . . Mu301 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by every IP in New England (Talk) to last version by Mu301 using rollback)
Does the candidate believe that 1) those whose technical work in progress, 2) those whose habitual methods of research, or 3) those whose inter-collegial practices and relationships are called into question are ethically entitled, cordially invited, and warmly encouraged to engage with and respond to their observers, commentators, and critics in a timely, sincere, reflective, and scholarly manner in the Wikimedia venues where the questions, comments, or criticisms are published?—Moulton 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the candidate subscribe to and pledge to adhere to the Wikimedia Foundation Mission Statement (viz. to empower and engage scholars around the world to freely collect and develop educational content and to effectively disseminate it to other scholars and students around the world)? —Moulton 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the candidate have an opinion or view regarding normative requirements for obtaining the approval of a University Ethics Review Panel before embarking on Wikimedia-hosted projects and exercises intended for publication in a Ph.D. thesis or academic journal? —Moulton 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Does an authentic learning community engage in such irregular practices as Bill of Attainder and Immurement?
Does an authentic learning community publish critical analyses of other scholars whilst denying those scholars the courtesy of responding to their peers in a timely manner and attending to those responses in a collegial manner?
Mike.Lifeguard blocks out the story line of the lunatic drama...
The soap opera continues...
QUOTE(Mike.Lifeguard blocks out the story line of the lunatic drama...)
(Block log); 17:06 . . Mike.lifeguard (Talk | contribs) blocked out the story line (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts)
12:42, 20 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ (Are you going to block out the story line for the next chapter of our jointly authored liminal social drama?)
And here is what Mike blocked out...
QUOTE(The Liminal Social Drama)
The liminal social drama of this episode reprises one of the oldest dramas in the annals of human history. This is the classic drama perennially set in motion when the first three laws of the Code of Hammurabi are invoked. Eventually everyone has to go "jump in the lake" in a baptismal cleansing ritual suggested by the second of Hammurabi's legendary laws. —Moulton 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
Let's assume that Caprice is a child.
Caprice is a muppet, a storybook character designed to illustrate a famous bible story about scapegoating.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
Wouldn't it be expected that a child would receive time outs and denied ice cream if they do not behave as the parental figure expects them to?
Yes, Caprice is sent away to a "time out" in the desert (without dessert, if you like because Yom Kippur is also a day of fasting), to dwell with Azazel, the demon spirit of the desert. But the whole point of the Story of Azazel is that Caprice is chosen as an unblemished kid who is made the Scape-Goat, to bear the collective sins of the community.
And what's amusing about the Caprice legend is that she's too naive to realize what the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) ritual is all about, so three days later, she blithely wanders back to the community, oblivious of the fact that she was ritually banished.
Do you recognize that story line, Ottava? It turns up in a later collection of bible stories that you may be somewhat familiar with.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
Furthermore, a goat isn't a child (possibly a "kid" but only in the goat sense). Regardless, its still Moulton. It always will be Moulton.
Yes, and when the story was reprised in the New Testament, the role of Caprice was played, intentionally, by an upstart, radical, Jewish Rabbi. And he knew he was being disobedient, with respect to the wishes of the resident authority figures.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
In 6 months I will give him the same offer, as I have been doing practically every 6 months. This was the first time I stated to open up a talk page though, but yeah.
Gee, thanks, Mr. Pilate. That's mighty Christian of you.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:38am)
Here's an idea: Why don't you tell him he can register an account or post as an IP without any restrictions, and he'll be treated as any other editor, subject to the same rules as any other, and then if he abuses that privilege, you're done. You gave him a fair try and he abused it. He wouldn't be able to prodigiously blather with any moral force. You could just ignore him and be free, free at last!
I myself like closure.
The whole point of the Caprice Caper is that the designated scapegoat is emphatically not subject to the same rules as everybody else.
If everybody were subject to the same rules, the Lunatic Scape-Goat Psychodrama would never arise in the first place, and the New Testament would never have been written, nor would there ever have been a Civil Rights Movement, an American Revolution, or the Magna Carta.
When the rules don't apply equally to all (including those making the rules), you inevitably get Lunatic Drama.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:58pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:26pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock. I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing...<snip>
You're a smart man, Abd. Barry is smarter. At least when it comes to recognizing what game's actually being played. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
You might notice that I wasn't promoting the return of Barry. Diego got fired up about it. If anyone got burned, it was him. I tried to make it work, partly for Wikiversity, partly for Diego, but Barry was completely uninterested in cooperation and simply wanted to set up a situation where Caprice would be crushed. It was easy for him to arrange that.
Pardon me, but my impression is that once Barry was jacked back into the Matrix for an unrelated task, both Ottava and yourself prompty demanded that Barry suck your collective dicks ... and like it. Not exactly sure why you expected a different outcome, given this input, but maybe that's why I am not a high falutin' scholar or something.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Fri 9th July 2010, 8:39am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 10:58pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th July 2010, 6:26pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:38pm)
This interchange and how Barry has been handling it subsequently are why I have withdrawn support for negotiating the return of Moulton to Wikiversity, with what would have then become a request to lift the global lock. I now see that as probably impossible unless Moulton somehow realizes what he's been doing...<snip
You're a smart man, Abd. Barry is smarter. At least when it comes to recognizing what game's actually being played. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
You might notice that I wasn't promoting the return of Barry. Diego got fired up about it. If anyone got burned, it was him. I tried to make it work, partly for Wikiversity, partly for Diego, but Barry was completely uninterested in cooperation and simply wanted to set up a situation where Caprice would be crushed. It was easy for him to arrange that.
Pardon me, but my impression is that once Barry was jacked back into the Matrix for an unrelated task, both Ottava and yourself prompty demanded that Barry suck your collective dicks ... and like it. Not exactly sure why you expected a different outcome, given this input, but maybe that's why I am not a high falutin' scholar or something.
Abd, Ottava, and Adam: Pay attention here.
Taiwopanfob is a neutral, uninvolved observer with whom I have had negligible interaction. For all intents and purposes, Taiwopanfob and I are total strangers.
So there is how it looks to an outsider, a neutral observer.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(James T. Neill on Wikiversity)
Owners of blocked accounts can demonstrate a case for unblocking for community consideration - or can try a different account or anonymous IP. Editors using accounts with sysop tools should IMHO be spending as much time as possible thinking and behaving as normal editors and content creators and relatively little time using or thinking about using delete/block. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Adam? Ottava? Abd?
Care to articulate and demonstrate your disrespect for Professor Neill's perspective?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 6:36am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
Wouldn't it be expected that a child would receive time outs and denied ice cream if they do not behave as the parental figure expects them to?
Yes, Caprice is sent away to a "time out" in the desert (without dessert, if you like because Yom Kippur is also a day of fasting), to dwell with Azazel, the demon spirit of the desert. But the whole point of the Story of Azazel is that Caprice is chosen as an unblemished kid who is made the Scape-Goat, to bear the collective sins of the community.
And what's amusing about the Caprice legend is that she's too naive to realize what the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) ritual is all about, so three days later, she blithely wanders back to the community, oblivious of the fact that she was ritually banished.
Do you recognize that story line, Ottava? It turns up in a later collection of bible stories that you may be somewhat familiar with.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
Furthermore, a goat isn't a child (possibly a "kid" but only in the goat sense). Regardless, its still Moulton. It always will be Moulton.
Yes, and when the story was reprised in the New Testament, the role of Caprice was played, intentionally, by an upstart, radical, Jewish Rabbi. And he knew he was being disobedient, with respect to the wishes of the resident authority figures.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:19am)
In 6 months I will give him the same offer, as I have been doing practically every 6 months. This was the first time I stated to open up a talk page though, but yeah.
Gee, thanks, Mr. Pilate. That's mighty Christian of you.
Here is where Moulton falls apart.
You made up a name, Caprice, attributed to Azazel, which is a mistranslation of "mountain peak" to "scape goat", and then tried to enter into a fantasy. Then you confused that with Jesus, the pascal lamb, which was the lamb that was sacrificed during the Exodus.
This is all while you try to pretend that you, a guy who spent a lot of time mocking, attacking, and harassing many individuals, is some how related to a guy who is 1. son of God and 2. without sin.
And if you want martyrdom, the only true martyrdom is by those who accept it and don't whine about it. Instead, martyrs ask for -more- punishment and sacrifice everything to do Christ's work.
You can't even get the basic details right, and you try to claim that you have the general themes right? You are off on every single possible level, Moulton.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
"No dissassemble! No disassemble!" --No. 5 in Short Circuit
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 12:29pm)
Here is where Moulton falls apart.
Here is where Moulton reassembles himself.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 12:29pm)
You made up a name, Caprice, attributed to Azazel, which is a mistranslation of "mountain peak" to "scape goat", and then tried to enter into a fantasy. Then you confused that with Jesus, the pascal lamb, which was the lamb that was sacrificed during the Exodus.
Yes, I chose the name "Caprice" who is otherwise only known as "The Goat for Azazel" in the biblical text. The adjectival qualifier (Azazel) is not the name of the goat, but a description of its fate.
Jesus was both the scapegoat and the Paschal Lamb. But the Paschal Lamb, which is sacrificed and eaten, does not come back to life in the Passover Story. But the Goat for Azazel, banished to the wilderness on Yom Kippur, did on occasion wander back (according to apocryphal stories). When Jesus combined these two stories for the Passion of Christ, he intended to come back, so as to domonstrate the futility of the Yom Kippur scapegoat ritual.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 12:29pm)
This is all while you try to pretend that you, a guy who spent a lot of time mocking, attacking, and harassing many individuals, is some how related to a guy who is 1. son of God and 2. without sin.
Who ever said I was without sin. Jimbo Wales named my sin. Yes I really did write those atrocious song parodies and post them on my blog. I've never denied that. The record is clear on why he banned me in December 2008.
As to being related, you know that Jesus was said to be descended from King David. As you may know, King David was a redhead (like me). There aren't many red-headed Jews. And Jesus was Jewish too. So it's very likely that we are all three related. And while Kind David didn't write atrocious song parodies, he did write psalms. So we have that in common too. So you don't really know that we are not all related. Very likely we are.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 12:29pm)
And if you want martyrdom, the only true martyrdom is by those who accept it and don't whine about it. Instead, martyrs ask for -more- punishment and sacrifice everything to do Christ's work.
What are you whinging on about? Everybody knows what I want. I want young people to learn some science. And I want to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
And anyway, the Greek word, martyr just means witness.
Does it disturb you that I bear witness to the atrocities committed at WMF-sponsored sites and then write atrocious song parodies about them?
If meting out punishment is your role in this reprise of the hoary scapegoat psychodrama, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of performing the supporting role of Pontius Pilate? It's tough role to play, Jeff, but somebody's got to do it.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 12:29pm)
You can't even get the basic details right, and you try to claim that you have the general themes right? You are off on every single possible level, Moulton.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:56pm)
If meting out punishment is your role in this reprise of the hoary scapegoat psychodrama, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of performing the supporting role of Pontius Pilate? It's tough role to play, Jeff, but somebody's got to do it.
Who gets to be Bigus Dickus?
QUOTE
Does that mean you get to punish me some more?
Kinky.
Not that it's a bad thing, but what the heck did you spike your coffee with this morning? You're in rare form today. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 9th July 2010, 2:31pm)
Not that it's a bad thing, but what the heck did you spike your coffee with this morning? You're in rare form today. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)
Most of the time when I'm in one of my didactic roles, it's the same old material that I routinely present to visitors at the Science Museum.
But this is material that isn't quite that well established.
Geoff Plourde was one of the first people to whom I explained my novel version of the Azazel Story, using Caprice as my version of Aslan.
Geoff, as you may know, is now an Associate Pastor in the Christian Fellowship. He thought this material would work well in his planned module on "Types and Shadows" -- a relatively obscure topic in Christian Theology.
So I haven't had a chance to rehearse the Caprician Caper at all, let alone share the script with anyone. Indeed, I had planned to work with Geoff to block out the story in advance of his course.
But lo and behold Ottava, Abd, and Adam rose to play the role of the antagonist to Caprice. How fortunate, because I didn't really have a model of their lines. And I must say, they played their roles brilliantly.
It never occurred to me that Ottava or Abd would be so good at playing the role of the Klingon Kommander, menacing a poor little kid like Caprice. And all the while they are writing the Child Protection Policy on WV. Could the irony be any more delcious?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:56pm)
What are you whinging on about? Everybody knows what I want. I want young people to learn some science. And I want to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Apparently, not enough. Otherwise, you would agree to my conditions. Your false martyrdom and grand standing is what is hurting the children right now.
Furthermore, Jesus was not a "scape goat". If you knew the New Testament as you claim, the only imagery of sin and animals there was putting demons into pigs. The image doesn't come up because it wasn't part of Hebrew culture. It was a mistranslation and something that threw people off after Christ.
There was no "goat of azazel", the word "goat" was found in the mistranslation of azazel when they switched vowels.
The only sacrifice of animals that come up are Abraham and Isaac and the Pascal Lamb. You don't understand the original language and you are reworking Biblical material at a whim without care to the origins or intent. Have some care about what you chose, but, since you are so busy comparing your on Wiki harassment of others to Jesus, I doubt it would bother you in any regard.
If you continue with these delusions and the rest, it will sadly be true that Thekohser will have a better chance of being unblocked before you will be. You could have been unblocked over a year ago. No apologies needed. No saying "I was wrong". No bowing, promising to be better, "finding truth", or any of the other bs normally needed. Just one simple promise that you would stop using real names and drop the 2008 problems. Doing both would even be in your best interest as it would remove any excuse harassers from other projects would have for going after you.
You know how I feel. Everyone knows how I feel. I am done reiterating it for you because I doubt you even see or understand anything I say. It is all just meaningless text that you will twist and turn around for your own amusement while ignoring the reality of the situation.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 2:33pm)
Apparently, not enough. Otherwise, you would agree to my conditions. Your false martyrdom and grand standing is what is hurting the children right now.
Here's a story that I believe is germane to this situation. A guy finds a cute little dog hanging out in his backyard. The dog seems really nice, so he feeds him, and ultimately decides to "adopt" him. After a while he lets the dog into the house, but after a few days, the dog poops on the carpet. So, he puts the dog back outside.
From that point on, the dog spends all of his time on the steps to the back porch, staring in, scratching at the door, occasionally barking, and in general trying to guilt-trip the guy into letting him back in the house. After a while, the guy thinks, "Well, maybe he'll do better this time," and lets the dog back in. But after a couple of days, the same thing happens - he poops on the carpet, so he puts the dog back outside.
The same cycle happens again, and after the third time, the guy just stares at the dog and says, "What am i going to do with you? All I ask is that you not poop on the carpet, but every time I let you in, that's exactly what you do. I'm at my wit's end!"
At that, the dog turns to him and says, "Actually, the problem is you. The dog-owner is supposed to let the dog out twice a day to poop in the yard, or else take the dog for a walk with a pooper-scooper, but you haven't been doing that - you just do what you've always done, whatever that is, until I can't hold it in anymore. And this entire house is wall-to-wall carpeted, except for the kitchen - which is where the food is, so I can't poop in there. So it's really just a matter of scheduling, and understanding the requirements of dog-ownership."
The guy looks at the dog incredulously, and finally says, "Whoa! A talking dog!"
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:33pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:56pm)
What are you whinging on about? Everybody knows what I want. I want young people to learn some science. And I want to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Apparently, not enough. Otherwise, you would agree to my conditions. Your false martyrdom and grand standing is what is hurting the children right now.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:49pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:33pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:56pm)
What are you whinging on about? Everybody knows what I want. I want young people to learn some science. And I want to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Apparently, not enough. Otherwise, you would agree to my conditions. Your false martyrdom and grand standing is what is hurting the children right now.
Ottava, let me quote from Hammurabi...
Go jump in the lake.
Come on Doc, after making common cause with every vexatious piece of work that has plagued WR over the past three years you are now about to give up on Ottava? What would Gandhi/Jesus/St. Francis say?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 9th July 2010, 5:59pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:49pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:33pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:56pm)
What are you whinging on about? Everybody knows what I want. I want young people to learn some science. And I want to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Apparently, not enough. Otherwise, you would agree to my conditions. Your false martyrdom and grand standing is what is hurting the children right now.
Ottava, let me quote from Hammurabi...
Go jump in the lake.
Come on Doc, after making common cause with every vexatious piece of work that has plagued WR over the past three years you are now about to give up on Ottava? What would Gandhi/Jesus/St. Francis say?
Gandhi would say, "I think there is room in the Colloquium for both of us."
Jesus would say the same thing as Caprice. Caprice would gambol in, say, "Peace be with you," and gambol out.
St Francis wouldn't say anything. St. Francis would just plant some flowers. The point being, when someone gives you a pile of fertilizer, plant a garden.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 4:05pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 9th July 2010, 5:59pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:49pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 3:33pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 1:56pm)
What are you whinging on about? Everybody knows what I want. I want young people to learn some science. And I want to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
Apparently, not enough. Otherwise, you would agree to my conditions. Your false martyrdom and grand standing is what is hurting the children right now.
Ottava, let me quote from Hammurabi...
Go jump in the lake.
Come on Doc, after making common cause with every vexatious piece of work that has plagued WR over the past three years you are now about to give up on Ottava? What would Gandhi/Jesus/St. Francis say?
Gandhi would say, "I think there is room in the Colloquium for both of us."
Jesus would say the same thing as Caprice. Caprice would gambol in, say, "Peace be with you," and gambol out.
St Francis wouldn't say anything. St. Francis would just plant some flowers. The point being, when someone gives you a pile of fertilizer, plant a garden.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Some of you will remember Jonas Rand, a rather precocious young chap whom the Mods here excluded because of his tender age.
He recently friended me on Facebook and left this message...
QUOTE(Jonas Rand on FaceBook)
Hello.
This is Jonas Rand.
I can't really understand the latest Wikiversity business. In 2008, Jimbo Wales arrogantly strutted into Wikiversity like a king who could not be questioned. It seemed like a coup at the time, by someone who wanted to stifle analysing and discussing problems with the Official Way of Doing Things, rather than a facilitator in an educational community. Some wish to revive WV's original purpose. Is this a correct view of things?
I am quite confused about what is happening there now.
I would say that Abd probably wants to revive WV for some valid purpose, while JWSchmidt would like to restore it to its original chartered purpose.
However that isn't likely to ever happen.
Wikiversity can still be used, to a limited extent, as a dynamic learning laboratory, but not quite in the way anyone originally intended.
Ottava, you believe that Jesus was free of sin. You also believe that he died for your sins (and indeed for all of our sins). Doesn't that make him the mother of all scapegoats? Just sayin'.
And if we're really going to go there and compare Moulton to Jesus (uh, yeah), the thing to think about is how the money changers thought about what Jesus did at the temple. I'm sure they were quite annoyed, and if he did something like that today online they'd certainly call him a troll. Right?
The Bible (like any deep and influential text) can only be instructive if it's not "dead". It actually takes a considerable amount of thought, imagination, and creativity to give yourself an answer to WWJD.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 6:20pm)
Jesus would throw Ottava, Adam, Abd, and Jimbo out of WV. They were defiling the Temple of Learning.
Strange scene. You'd think Jesus was against free markets. Were these money changers and animals sellers not providing a needed service for people who wanted to travel and worship?
Ottava, you believe that Jesus was free of sin. You also believe that he died for your sins (and indeed for all of our sins). Doesn't that make him the mother of all scapegoats? Just sayin'.
And if we're really going to go there and compare Moulton to Jesus (uh, yeah), the thing to think about is how the money changers thought about what Jesus did at the temple. I'm sure they were quite annoyed, and if he did something like that today online they'd certainly call him a troll. Right?
The Bible (like any deep and influential text) can only be instructive if it's not "dead". It actually takes a considerable amount of thought, imagination, and creativity to give yourself an answer to WWJD.
1. Azazel was the word, not "scape goat". 2. There were two goats (7 lambs, 1 cow, and something else) as part of the sacrifice. 3. The pure goat was given to god in return for being allowed to purge the sin while the impure goat was cast out as symbolic of casting out the sin.
Jesus was the Paschal Lamb, the pure lamb whose blood is shed for the protection of God's people while the body is consumed to sustain them in a journey back to the holy land.
One is an image of impurity being cast out. The other is the sacrifice of the innocent to protect and redeem the people. Now, Jesus could be seen as the other goat, the non Azazel/Scapegoat, but that is only a remembrance of the Paschal Lamb.
Furthermore, Jesus was in a line of the beloved son - the son that was given up to God as a sacrifice, and only Jesus was actually sacrificed by his Father. The symbolic act was a rebirth, with the son being returned as to show God's grace. Jesus returns, the Azazel goat is not to return.
Now, for the money changers. Jesus came to fulfill the law and, as a prophet, to return the people to God. He was free of sign and had the ability to distinguish when righteous indignation was 100% appropriate. Humans can try, but, as a fallen people, we will never be 100% correct. Moulton is neither sent from God nor without sin.
And, when the Jews attacked and criticized Jesus, he bore their attacks and bore their pain. When he sent his people out like "lambs among wolves", he said that they should act quietly and: "10 But into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you not, going forth into the streets thereof, say: 11 Even the very dust of your city that cleaves to us, we wipe off against you. Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand. 12 I say to you, it shall be more tolerable at that day for Sodom than for that city."
This was not a judgment on this world but the next. Moulton is too concerned about the here and now. His realm is the physical. Jesus's was not. Jesus died for the sins of those who even condemned him, and he died willingly for that. Moulton has never been willing, has never been quiet, and cares only about here and now.
He is more akin to a Samson wannabe, who calls upon God in a hope that he can avenge himself and his beliefs through a feat of strength.
Moulton
QUOTE
They were defiling the Temple of Learning.
Jesus made it clear that the only knowledge that mattered was that which led one to God. The only temple you worship is one of the physical, one built by pettiness, by pride, by desire, by revenge, and the rest. It is a heathen temple.
Now, for the money changers. Jesus came to fulfill the law and, as a prophet, to return the people to God. He was free of sign and had the ability to distinguish when righteous indignation was 100% appropriate. Humans can try, but, as a fallen people, we will never be 100% correct. Moulton is neither sent from God nor without sin.
I'm with ya on the Jesus thing here, but our interpretations of what the man said are presumably quite different (Roman Catholic theology and Quaker theology don't have much in common when it comes to messengers). Nevertheless (and I don't expect this to make much sense to you): if "Moulton" is showing you a way to see the moral truth, he's speaking for God (his state of sinfulness notwithstanding). Jesus stopped speaking (at least in the literal sense) a long time ago, but we brothers and sisters catch a passing phrase here and there and pass it on as best we can.
IOW, always listen, because even a the words of someone you dislike can help you find the path.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th July 2010, 9:52pm)
This was not a judgment on this world but the next. Moulton is too concerned about the here and now. His realm is the physical. Jesus's was not. Jesus died for the sins of those who even condemned him, and he died willingly for that. Moulton has never been willing, has never been quiet, and cares only about here and now.
You have no power over the next world, Jeff. Nothing you can say or do will make as much difference as a drop in the ocean. Not news to you, I'm sure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).
What you can do is make this world better. Barry does that by trying to enlighten one person at a time. You take a different approach, it seems. I'm not at all sure, but I strongly suspect he's more successful than you are.
(With apologies to our readers who find actual religious talk painful to read!)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
It's interesting that Jeff singles Jesus out as being the unique Son of God.
The English word "son" corresponds to the Hebrew word "bar" (as in Bar Mitzvah, which means Son of Duty). The word is commonly used in a metaphorical sense to mean someone who subscribes to or follows some guiding principle.
The Deity of the Old Testament had a name. Most people know only the acronym (YHVH) or the anglicized pronunciation of the tetragrammaton (Jehovah). That would be like calling JFK "Jeffik" instead of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The initials YHVH are short for a 3-word phrase, "Eheyah Asher Eheyah" which is frequently mistranslated as "I am that I am". Eheyeh is actually the future tense of the verb "to be". The literal translation is thus "will be who/what will be" (Que Sera, Sera). A better translation is simply "Becoming." The name of the God of Moses was "Becoming".
So Jesus was the Next Generation of Becoming.
I'd like to think we are all part of the next generation of becoming.
And I lament those who conduct themselves in an unbecoming manner.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 9:40pm)
It's interesting that Jeff singles Jesus out as being the unique Son of God.
The English word "son" corresponds to the Hebrew word "bar" (as in Bar Mitzvah, which means Son of Duty). The word is commonly used in a metaphorical sense to mean someone who subscribes to or follows some guiding principle.
The Deity of the Old Testament had a name. Most people know only the acronym (YHVH) or the anglicized pronunciation of the tetragrammaton (Jehovah). That would be like calling JFK "Jeffik" instead of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The initials YHVH are short for a 3-word phrase, "Eheyah Asher Eheyah" which is frequently mistranslated as "I am that I am". Eheyeh is actually the future tense of the verb "to be". The literal translation is thus "will be who/what will be" (Que Sera, Sera). A better translation is simply "Becoming." The name of the God of Moses was "Becoming".
So Jesus was the Next Generation of Becoming.
I'd like to think we are all part of the next generation of becoming.
And I lament those who conduct themselves in an unbecoming manner.
You're so awesome. I want to follow your wisdom always. Bless the internet for leading me to you.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 9th July 2010, 9:59pm)
Why do you think we created the Internet in the first place?
Certainly not to titillate ourselves with gross pictures.
Show me Moulton you're no fool. Walk across my wiki-school.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
After the Barton Brothers (Cut Speech), that's my favorite song parody of all times. And the Hebrew subtitles are precious. Especially when "Hallelujah" come up in Hebrew.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 9th July 2010, 11:26pm)
Nevertheless (and I don't expect this to make much sense to you): if "Moulton" is showing you a way to see the moral truth, he's speaking for God (his state of sinfulness notwithstanding). Jesus stopped speaking (at least in the literal sense) a long time ago, but we brothers and sisters catch a passing phrase here and there and pass it on as best we can.
IOW, always listen, because even a the words of someone you dislike can help you find the path.
Augustine, in The Teacher, stated that Jesus speaks to us constantly through the voice that tells us what is right and wrong, and that the only language that is anything more than words is that which leads us towards him. Now, Augustine was very clear on the types of words and use of words, and being deceptive of the self and of language, such as pretending to be Caprice, would alienate your words and taint them beyond their primary use.
Augustine said that such people were like the gluttons alluded by St Paul, the people who live to eat and don't eat only to live. Moulton has reversed the order and priority within language, so his words mislead and do not lead.
QUOTE
You have no power over the next world, Jeff. Nothing you can say or do will make as much difference as a drop in the ocean. Not news to you, I'm sure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).
If that is so, then we are all damned or saved regardless of what we do? I guess Quakers still have predestination. Not a really happy bunch.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Jeff, does that inner voice tell you anything about whether it's appropriate to bully others (especially children and those who have less political power than you)?
Don't you find it ironic that you were bullying Caprice ("My way or the highway") even as you were editing the Policy on Protecting Children to add a No Bullying paragraph?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 10th July 2010, 10:19am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 9th July 2010, 11:26pm)
Nevertheless (and I don't expect this to make much sense to you): if "Moulton" is showing you a way to see the moral truth, he's speaking for God (his state of sinfulness notwithstanding). Jesus stopped speaking (at least in the literal sense) a long time ago, but we brothers and sisters catch a passing phrase here and there and pass it on as best we can.
IOW, always listen, because even a the words of someone you dislike can help you find the path.
Augustine, in The Teacher, stated that Jesus speaks to us constantly through the voice that tells us what is right and wrong, and that the only language that is anything more than words is that which leads us towards him. Now, Augustine was very clear on the types of words and use of words, and being deceptive of the self and of language, such as pretending to be Caprice, would alienate your words and taint them beyond their primary use.
Augustine said that such people were like the gluttons alluded by St Paul, the people who live to eat and don't eat only to live. Moulton has reversed the order and priority within language, so his words mislead and do not lead.
Not all biblical passages line up (in fact, a number of them contradict). Somebody's obviously misleading you, but are they also leading you?
QUOTE
QUOTE
You have no power over the next world, Jeff. Nothing you can say or do will make as much difference as a drop in the ocean. Not news to you, I'm sure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).
If that is so, then we are all damned or saved regardless of what we do? I guess Quakers still have predestination. Not a really happy bunch.
Funny how you are so skillful at reading one thing then responding to something else entirely that you only imagined was written (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif). You can certainly improve yourself and the world you live in, but do you somehow think you can improve heaven?
OTOH, maybe you're wearing a hair shirt over your chastity belt?
(Disclosure: I'm not a spokesperson for the Society of Friends. Or the Quakers. Though it's not particularly rare for us to hold that the afterlife (or end-of-days, etc.) is none of our business, since obsessing over it distracts from the work at hand.)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 12:22pm)
Funny how you are so skillful at reading one thing then responding to something else entirely that you only imagined was written (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif). You can certainly improve yourself and the world you live in, but do you somehow think you can improve heaven?
You missed the point - the only thing that matters is the afterlife.
Now, lets return to what was overlooked before - Moulton insists that Caprice is a little kid, which means that a 60 year old is trying to use WMF servers while pretending to be a little kid. Isn't that just a tad creepy?
SB Johnny, below
QUOTE
Did you actually for one moment believe Caprice was a little kid? Do you think anyone else believed that? Sheesh.
Even if it is easy to see through, the act that he is trying to pretend to be such is the key. Why would an old man be pretending to be a child on an educational site?
The hair shirt was (and maybe still is) worn to cause misery in the present to make up for any sinful pleasures, in order to balance one's account for the afterlife. See his reply above (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif).
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 10th July 2010, 12:59pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 12:22pm)
Funny how you are so skillful at reading one thing then responding to something else entirely that you only imagined was written (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif). You can certainly improve yourself and the world you live in, but do you somehow think you can improve heaven?
You missed the point - the only thing that matters is the afterlife.
Now, lets return to what was overlooked before - Moulton insists that Caprice is a little kid, which means that a 60 year old is trying to use WMF servers while pretending to be a little kid. Isn't that just a tad creepy?
Did you actually for one moment believe Caprice was a little kid? Do you think anyone else believed that? Sheesh.
BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:14pm)
The hair shirt was (and maybe still is) worn to cause misery in the present to make up for any sinful pleasures, in order to balance one's account for the afterlife. See his reply above (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif).
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 10th July 2010, 10:29am)
disbelief in the after-life
I never had evidence for deities or an after-life before participating in Wikimedia wiki projects. But now I've seen Jimbo exercise god-like powers and I've seen Moulton come back from the wiki-grave....repeatedly.
Can the wikipedia review oracle make any predictions about Jimbo's fate in December, when his term on the WMF Board expires?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sat 10th July 2010, 11:56am)
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 10th July 2010, 10:29am)
disbelief in the after-life
I never had evidence for deities or an after-life before participating in Wikimedia wiki projects. But now I've seen Jimbo exercise god-like powers and I've seen Moulton come back from the wiki-grave....repeatedly.
Can the wikipedia review oracle make any predictions about Jimbo's fate in December, when his term on the WMF Board expires?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 10th July 2010, 10:47am)
Jeff, does that inner voice tell you anything about whether it's appropriate to bully others (especially children and those who have less political power than you)?
Don't you find it ironic that you were bullying Caprice ("My way or the highway") even as you were editing the Policy on Protecting Children to add a No Bullying paragraph?
This is such bullshit. Moulton is a globally locked, supposedly banned editor, from all WMF projects. That's a fact whether or not the ban was legitimate.
The Caprice account was created by Moulton, I believe, cooperating with a new probationary admin at Wikiversity in order to facilitate the possible return of Moulton to some kind of useful relationship to the Wikiversity community, following somewhat the model I'd set up for Thekohser.
Ottava saw this and made an offer to Moulton/Caprice, to unblock him under certain conditions. It was actually a generous offer, given the circumstances, Ottava would have been sticking his neck out if he'd done it as promised, i..e, if Moulton had agreed. Moulton then attacked Ottava as a bully, used his real name knowing that this would get him blocked again, and generally threw a fit.
Moulton believes that no rapprochement is possible, the only recourse he has is disruption and confrontation, to expose the mailed fist. He continues to respond in that way even when efforts are made to create positive connections that respect his dignity. The net effect, I suspect, is to utterly discredit his earlier efforts, and those of all those who tried to help him along the way.
Perhaps that's a good outcome. I'd have preferred better, myself. Perhaps that's how the Moulton wars end, with Jimbo taken out of play and Moulton discredited as a nut case, ranting and raving, occasionally popping up for people to see who watch changes and read history, don't mind him, he's just that way. And then we start rebuilding the demolished city. It could be worse, I suppose.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:14pm)
<snip> BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
What seems to happen is that growth stagnates. But change the display parameters to linear instead of logarithmic, and you'll see that growth continues.
Thanks for posting the link to that - a fascinating little widget.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 10th July 2010, 9:59am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 12:22pm)
Funny how you are so skillful at reading one thing then responding to something else entirely that you only imagined was written (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif). You can certainly improve yourself and the world you live in, but do you somehow think you can improve heaven?
You missed the point - the only thing that matters is the afterlife.
If we could only convince some Muslim fundies otherwise, we'd have a lot fewer suicide bombers. The belief that life is a some kind of dress rehersal for something after death, has been the cause of a great deal of misery in the world.
Some for the Glories of This World; and some Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come; Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go, Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:58pm)
The belief that life is a some kind of dress rehersal for something after death, has been the cause of a great deal of misery in the world.
Yes, most of which has emanated from Europe and North America singing Christian hymns.
Funny reading Moulton and Ottava I was thinking that all that was missing was a visit from Christopher Hitchens. But then it occurred to me that it would then just all somehow be turned against the Muslims. Here we go now, without bothering Christopher who I'm sorry to hear is not feeling well.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 10th July 2010, 8:30pm)
Yes, most of which has emanated from Europe and North America singing Christian hymns.
Funny reading Moulton and Ottava I was thinking that all that was missing was a visit from Christopher Hitchens. But then it occurred to me that it would then just all somehow be turned against the Muslims. Here we go now, without bothering Christopher who I'm sorry to hear is not feeling well.
I got into a huge fight with Christopher Hitchens when I was a prominent person over at Slate. It was a far more interesting place before WaPo bought it. The odd thing is that there are your standard Democratic/Liberal posters, a few Republicans/Conservatives, and a group of Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert all of them and/or bash Catholics (they really hated me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) ).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:30pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:58pm)
The belief that life is a some kind of dress rehersal for something after death, has been the cause of a great deal of misery in the world.
Yes, most of which has emanated from Europe and North America singing Christian hymns.
Bah, there have been repectable-sized Muslim empires also. The reason Europe was conquered by Christians and (later) of course the Americas were conquered by now-Christian Europeans, is a fortunate accident, not something about the religion. The early Christians apostles went immediately from the Levant back home to the Mediterranean sea culture empires in Greece and Rome. So the Christians had that six century head-start, plus no fear of open water.
Not that a bunch of non-Christians and non-Muslims aren't in the running for making misery in the last couple of millennia: Mongol Khans, Timur, Japanese warlords.
And yes, the Christian belief in Heaven has caused its share of mayhem. There's hardly any mistake you can't justify, if you really think that sincerity (not results) is the most important thing, and nothing that happens is "for keeps." George W. Bush as governor of Texas used to spend 30 minutes on each death penalty clemency appeal (before invariably denying them all). The idea was pretty much to kill them all and let God sort them out. I think he even said "God bless you" to a few. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) I think that was also the essential attitude of the Inquisition: we're actually doing these people a favor by torturing them into confession, as we're saving them from Hell.
When some of the early Spanish fathers taught Catholicism to the Native Americans, they were shocked to find them baptizing infants in other tribes and then immediately bashing their brains out on a rock. But you have to admire the shear logic of it, no? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
Rest assured, if there is a scapegoat on Wikipedia, someone will put up a picture of someone else having sex with it; and someone else will tell children how having sex with scapegoats is "OK" and how they should not feel guilty about being attracted to them.
BTW ... can we have one just topic without it become a topic about Ottava?
If religion was pus, the Middle East - and all its petty egoistical warring tribal god spirits ... would be a huge abscess on the anus of humanity badly wanting lanced. For gods sake, give it a rest. All together now ...
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 10th July 2010, 8:36pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:30pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 10th July 2010, 5:58pm)
The belief that life is a some kind of dress rehersal for something after death, has been the cause of a great deal of misery in the world.
Yes, most of which has emanated from Europe and North America singing Christian hymns.
Bah, there have been repectable-sized Muslim empires also. The reason Europe was conquered by Christians and (later) of course the Americas were conquered by now-Christian Europeans, is a fortunate accident, not something about the religion. The early Christians apostles went immediately from the Levant back home to the Mediterranean sea culture empires in Greece and Rome. So the Christians had that six century head-start, plus no fear of open water.
Not that a bunch of non-Christians and non-Muslims aren't in the running for making misery in the last couple of millennia: Mongol Khans, Timur, Japanese warlords.
And yes, the Christian belief in Heaven has caused its share of mayhem. There's hardly any mistake you can't justify, if you really think that sincerity (not results) is the most important thing, and nothing that happens is "for keeps." George W. Bush as governor of Texas used to spend 30 minutes on each death penalty clemency appeal (before invariably denying them all). The idea was pretty much to kill them all and let God sort them out. I think he even said "God bless you" to a few. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) I think that was also the essential attitude of the Inquisition: we're actually doing these people a favor by torturing them into confession, as we're saving them from Hell.
When some of the early Spanish fathers taught Catholicism to the Native Americans, they were shocked to find them baptizing infants in other tribes and then immediately bashing their brains out on a rock. But you have to admire the shear logic of it, no? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Sticking to the Christian/Muslim "contest:"
The depopulation of the indigenous peoples of America (recovered in Latin America but not in El Norte) was achieved by Christians killing tens of millions. This alone outstrips the total of all loses from Muslim conquests and contemporary terrorism by a full order of magnitude. Add the Middle Passage (some Muslim complicity and some Muslim victims) and wars of colonial conquest and control, all of which had strong flavor of conversion, and and the West stands head and shoulders above Muslim mayhem. This doesn't even touch on the internal warfare of Christendom.
Probably the single worst Muslim religious blood letting of all time was the Iran/Iraq war. Of course the US armed both sides.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 10th July 2010, 8:09pm)
Sticking to the Christian/Muslim "contest:"
The depopulation of the indigenous peoples of America (recovered in Latin America but not in El Norte) was achieved by Christians killing tens of millions. This alone outstrips the total of all loses from Muslim conquests and contemporary terrorism by a full order of magnitude.
Unless you believe that viruses can have a religion, this is nonsense. Most of the people in the Americas were ultimately doomed the moment they made contact with European city dwellers and old world diseases, and that would have been true if not a bullet had been fired.
QUOTE
Add the Middle Passage (some Muslim complicity and some Muslim victims) and wars of colonial conquest and control, all of which had strong flavor of conversion, and and the West stands head and shoulders above Muslim mayhem. This doesn't even touch on the internal warfare of Christendom.
SOME Muslim complicity?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) The African slave trade was entirely an Islamic enterprise except at the end, and probably more black Africans were enslaved by Arabs, than by Europeans.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 10th July 2010, 9:21pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 10th July 2010, 8:09pm)
Sticking to the Christian/Muslim "contest:"
The depopulation of the indigenous peoples of America (recovered in Latin America but not in El Norte) was achieved by Christians killing tens of millions. This alone outstrips the total of all loses from Muslim conquests and contemporary terrorism by a full order of magnitude.
Unless you believe that viruses can have a religion, this is nonsense. Most of the people in the Americas were ultimately doomed the moment they made contact with European city dwellers and old world diseases, and that would have been true if not a bullet had been fired.
QUOTE
Add the Middle Passage (some Muslim complicity and some Muslim victims) and wars of colonial conquest and control, all of which had strong flavor of conversion, and and the West stands head and shoulders above Muslim mayhem. This doesn't even touch on the internal warfare of Christendom.
SOME Muslim complicity?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) The African slave trade was entirely an Islamic enterprise except at the end, and probably more black Africans were enslaved by Arabs, than by Europeans.
Catholic Spain (the worst losses because the Pre-Colombian population was the greatest) installed the disease vectors with direct military force. Had contact been through trade and consent rather than direct insertion of a garrisoned population enslaving the indigenous people the losses would have been much less. They can hardly claim innocence.
The chattel slavery brought to the Americas on European ships to European plantations for European masters was unlike anything the world had ever seen in terms of brutal exploitation. Please don't cite Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th July 2010, 2:36am)
And yes, the Christian belief in Heaven has caused its share of mayhem. There's hardly any mistake you can't justify, if you really think that sincerity (not results) is the most important thing, and nothing that happens is "for keeps." George W. Bush as governor of Texas used to spend 30 minutes on each death penalty clemency appeal (before invariably denying them all). The idea was pretty much to kill them all and let God sort them out. I think he even said "God bless you" to a few. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) I think that was also the essential attitude of the Inquisition: we're actually doing these people a favor by torturing them into confession, as we're saving them from Hell.
It's really amazing what humans are capable of when they form groups and then communally thump their chests in resonant self-righteousness and indignation.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th July 2010, 3:21am)
Unless you believe that viruses can have a religion, this is nonsense. Most of the people in the Americas were ultimately doomed
If the cause of the Western expansion was religious (which it was); sanctioned, sponsored and exploited by the state religion (which it was), intent on filling the coffers of the Christian (Catholic) business empires and so on (which it was) ... then the "collateral damage" was religious.
All those Middle Eastern monotheistic religion have been cruel and violent abominations upon the rest of humanity from the time they first crawled out of their flea infested desert. Please take them back.
The white men had no moral, political or ethical right to be in the Americas, in exactly the same way that the white men had no moral, political or ethical right to bring genocide and economic servitude to Asia. The fault was all theirs ... no mitigating circumstances.
Money lust, slave lust, acquisition of land and property ... what else was it all about. Exactly the same instinct all cults have (albeit in milder forms). 99% of religion is a fraud, a cover, to sell just those principles. And genocide is about memes, genes and virii.
But can we really know the truth of history ... and how few are willing to do the work to remove old personal or racial prejudices?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 10th July 2010, 12:59pm)
Moulton insists that Caprice is a little kid, which means that a 60 year old is trying to use WMF servers while pretending to be a little kid. Isn't that just a tad creepy?
Were Burr Tillstrom, Bob Keeshan, Shari Lewis, Jim Henson, or Fred Rogers creepy?
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 10th July 2010, 12:59pm)
Why would an old man be pretending to be a child on an educational site?
Why would Burr Tillstrom, Bob Keeshan, Shari Lewis, Jim Henson, or Fred Rogers converse with their audiences through puppet characters?
Could it possibly be because there is demonstrated educational value in puppetry?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
Ah, sock puppets. Take it away, LambChop! This is the troll that never ends, yes it goes on and on Moulton. Some people started doing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue doing it forever just because...This is the troll that never ends, yes it goes on and on Moulton. Some people started doing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue doing it forever just because...This is the troll that never ends, yes it goes on and on Moulton. Some people started doing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue doing it forever just because...
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th July 2010, 3:38pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 11th July 2010, 2:15am)
Shari Lewis was brilliant. And she died way too you.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 10th July 2010, 8:34pm)
Catholic Spain (the worst losses because the Pre-Colombian population was the greatest) installed the disease vectors with direct military force. Had contact been through trade and consent rather than direct insertion of a garrisoned population enslaving the indigenous people the losses would have been much less. They can hardly claim innocence.
How in the world would the losses ever have been "less" when the natives were not immune to smallpox, and the Europeans were? Cortez had no idea he was bringing smallpox to the Aztecs, nor did he conquer them immediately. Rather, it was a long and protracted struggle which required long and relatively peaceful periods of "exchange" for the pathogens to take hold. Infectious diseases spread better by love than war. In fact, there's pretty good evidence that the New World gave the Old World syphilis in exchange for smallpox, but of course the New World got the worse end of the Columbian exchange. That's part of the penalty of being a young civilization.
Most of this happened after 1520, long before the transmissable nature of smallpox was clear, yet it gets conflated with episodes in North America more than two centuries after Cortez (and by which time South America was already laid waste), and by which time it was generally known that smallpox was a transmissable (in one or two instances smallpox was used as a biowarfare agent by the British not only against the natives in North America, but later during the revolution against American rebels as well).
QUOTE
The chattel slavery brought to the Americas on European ships to European plantations for European masters was unlike anything the world had ever seen in terms of brutal exploitation. Please don't cite Wikipedia.
Hey, you're welcome to read the cited cites on this matter, which are many. And you're wrong.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th July 2010, 4:20pm)
Hey, you're welcome to read the cited cites on this matter, which are many. And you're wrong.
Breaking protocol by looking at the article you cite I wonder if you have read the article. I thought you where arguing that that Muslims "fed" the Middle Passage by supplying the ships with slaves heading West which would be partially true. But the article you cite isn't even about this population at all. It is about a completely different (and fanciful) slave trade heading East. It cites such solid authority as "African Arabic and Ajam Manuscripts" and "African oral tradition" which seem a little vague. Plus when sources are specifically discussed in an article it is a dead giveaway they are full of shit. Not mention by the articles own terms:
QUOTE
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
* Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2008. * Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2008.
The whole article is just another "Allegations of Cuban Apartheid," isn't it? I have no desire arguing with smug "experts" who run to Wikipedia Articles to fill in gaps in their understanding with something they didn't "know" five minutes ago. This doesn't augment your knowledge. It amplifies your ignorance.
You are just getting sloppy and dishonest as any other Wikipedian. As long as you have something nasty to say something about Muslims you don't care where comes from or how whack it might be. You really should get out of that place for good.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 1:14pm)
BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
It's as if somebody put the lid on the project. The article content stopped growing, but the lunatic drama in the talk pages went through the roof.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 17th July 2010, 10:20am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 1:14pm)
BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
It's as if somebody put the lid on the project. The article content stopped growing, but the lunatic drama in the talk pages went through the roof.
What seems to happen is that growth stagnates. But change the display parameters to linear instead of logarithmic, and you'll see that growth continues. (Quoting myself from another post)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 1:14pm)
BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
What I want to know is how did the Serbian Wikinews overtake the English counterpart?
EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like it was a bot taking Voice of America feeds via RSS. Should have known it was plagiarism of some sort.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 18th July 2010, 2:35am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th July 2010, 1:14pm)
BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
What I want to know is how did the Serbian Wikinews overtake the English counterpart?
EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like it was a bot taking Voice of America feeds via RSS. Should have known it was plagiarism of some sort.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 18th July 2010, 2:35am)
What I want to know is how did the Serbian Wikinews overtake the English counterpart?
EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like it was a bot taking Voice of America feeds via RSS. Should have known it was plagiarism of some sort.
Well, I'm always looking to learn things, so I followed your link. *scratches head* How, exactly, is copying compatibly-licensed text and citing the source - plagiarism?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 5,813
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th July 2010, 3:14am)
BTW, assuming nobody minds if I go back on topic, this animation is rather interesting. Look what happens to the little EN balloon after the summer of '08.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 18th July 2010, 9:50am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 18th July 2010, 2:35am)
What I want to know is how did the Serbian Wikinews overtake the English counterpart?
EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like it was a bot taking Voice of America feeds via RSS. Should have known it was plagiarism of some sort.
Well, I'm always looking to learn things, so I followed your link. *scratches head* How, exactly, is copying compatibly-licensed text and citing the source - plagiarism?
Enlighten me.
Maybe it's not plagiarism. Maybe the better term is "scraperism".
Still, as a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipediot, aren't I told that "who writes" an article is most easily found on a page like this? To the casual observer, that would look like Milosh and Brian McNeil produced that content.
I know, I know, there are disclaimers and credits all plastered liberally on the actual content page.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 18th July 2010, 4:57pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 18th July 2010, 9:50am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 18th July 2010, 2:35am)
What I want to know is how did the Serbian Wikinews overtake the English counterpart?
EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like it was a bot taking Voice of America feeds via RSS. Should have known it was plagiarism of some sort.
Well, I'm always looking to learn things, so I followed your link. *scratches head* How, exactly, is copying compatibly-licensed text and citing the source - plagiarism?
Enlighten me.
Maybe it's not plagiarism. Maybe the better term is "scraperism".
Still, as a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipediot, aren't I told that "who writes" an article is most easily found on a page like this? To the casual observer, that would look like Milosh and Brian McNeil produced that content.
I know, I know, there are disclaimers and credits all plastered liberally on the actual content page.
I'm willing to criticize any real evil that Wikipedia does. It has any number of flaws, the paramount one being the exile of important critics, such as yourself.
This isn't plagiarism.
It's cheesy, but not evil. VOA content is licensed to be scraped. Wikipedia content is also.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 18th July 2010, 1:30pm)
I'm willing to criticize any real evil that Wikipedia does. It has any number of flaws, the paramount one being the exile of important critics, such as yourself.
This isn't plagiarism.
It's cheesy, but not evil. VOA content is licensed to be scraped. Wikipedia content is also.
You have to admit that what Google then does with the rankings is a wee bit evil.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 3:25am)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 18th July 2010, 1:30pm)
I'm willing to criticize any real evil that Wikipedia does. It has any number of flaws, the paramount one being the exile of important critics, such as yourself.
This isn't plagiarism.
It's cheesy, but not evil. VOA content is licensed to be scraped. Wikipedia content is also.
You have to admit that what Google then does with the rankings is a wee bit evil.
Oh, I've never bought into the Google "Don't be Evil" schtick. Sometimes Google is just sitting there with a white cat in their lap, monocle fixed firmly into a scarred bald head.
Other times it just seems to crap out fistfuls of rubies.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Oh, Abd... It looks like Adambro didn't want any trace of the hours of labor represented in the link that I offered in this edit on Wikiversity. I dunno, maybe he's just a meticulous cleaner, and that reverted edit that left behind one period (.) was just bugging him. We did have this learning: it took him less than 4 minutes to react.
As you requested, here are the faculty recommendations regarding the qualifications of The Four Custodians of the Apocalypse to assume the duties of Headmaster here at Woolworths School of Political Dramaturgy.
We were especially impressed by the recent production in which the impressionable young students of Woolworths School of Political Dramaturgy were inducted into the long-forgotten practice of employing Parliamentary Bill of Attainder. The symbolic allusions to the Trial Scene from Alice in Wonderland was an especially brilliant maneuver.
We are confident that, with The Four Custodians of the Apocalypse in charge, our students will quickly learn all the well-known hoary practices from the rubbish heap of political history dating back to the Forgotten Realms of Hammurabi.
And, at the end of the term, all the students are cordially invited to Go Jump In the Lake.
(signed)
Humble Members of Your Obedient Faculty Senate El Jefe, Chairman of the Committee on Crime and Punishment Dark Waffle, Recoding Secretary The Lorax, Sargeant at Harms BanHammurabi, Redactor of Records
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th March 2010, 2:20am)
Jimbo, Jimbo, when will you ever learn? You cause more trouble than it's worth.
It's now 4 months and 10 days later, and rather than blowing over, the tempest in the WV kettle is blowing strong.
Moulton continues to throw line after line, and Ottava and Adambro seem to have an insatiable appetite for the bait.
JWSchmidt is doing whatever you call that thing he does. A lot.
Poor Abd is desperately trying to introduce some small dosage of reason into the mix, with little results to speak of.
Jtniell, the new 'crat, has wisely taken the "don't look at me!" approach to the whole thing.
Cormaggio (friend of Jimbo, but otherwise easily among the most level-headed and thoughtful of the admin crowd) is back, chipping in a few wise words here and there, but despite the cheers of "Amen, Brother!", seems to be unable to affect the momentum (and he strikes me as a man who will quickly find productive employment now that his grad work is done in any case, so won't be there long).
The argument over Moulton's and Thekohser's blocks continues with no end in sight, including some strange slow-motion wheel wars over the past week or so.
Ottava has become so hyper-vigilant in response to all those worms Moulton's been feeding him that he's seeing sockpuppets under every desk.
Privatemusings is mostly keeping his musings private.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
Oh, maybe off-topic, but I'm curious: is there really a thread here somewhere explaining who "Salmon of Doubt" was? I never did figure it out, and searching for the name brought up a bunch of much more recent threads.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 23rd July 2010, 5:15pm)
Oh, maybe off-topic, but I'm curious: is there really a thread here somewhere explaining who "Salmon of Doubt" was? I never did figure it out, and searching for the name brought up a bunch of much more recent threads.
I don't believe there is a thread, although there may be a post or two in the 300 Club to the effect that Ottava claims that the editor behind the SoD sock has now spilled the beans to Ottava and perhaps to a few others. But as far as I know, there isn't a shred of evidence to lend credence to Ottava's leak. So maybe his leak is accurate and maybe not. I have no reliable way to drawn any valid conclusions.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 23rd July 2010, 5:48pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 23rd July 2010, 5:15pm)
Oh, maybe off-topic, but I'm curious: is there really a thread here somewhere explaining who "Salmon of Doubt" was? I never did figure it out, and searching for the name brought up a bunch of much more recent threads.
I don't believe there is a thread, although there may be a post or two in the 300 Club to the effect that Ottava claims that the editor behind the SoD sock has now spilled the beans to Ottava and perhaps to a few others. But as far as I know, there isn't a shred of evidence to lend credence to Ottava's leak. So maybe his leak is accurate and maybe not. I have no reliable way to drawn any valid conclusions.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It seems to me that Cormaggio has sunk my chances of returning to Wikiversity. I guess he favors Jimbo Wales' technique for making "Wikiversity to be an open, tolerant and welcoming place".
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 26th July 2010, 6:59pm)
Every Sunday, mourning, over WVBD...
Cormaggio a fargenigen Cormaggio men ken a bootkick krigen
I had a great laugh when I read his user page.
QUOTE
Hi, my real name is Cormac Lawler, and I'm really enthusiastic about Wikiversity and what it could become. I've been closely involved with setting up the project (through many months on Meta :-)), and intend to be just as active in helping shape Wikiversity as it develops. It's fundamentally the focus of my ongoing PhD (a 3-year process which began in September 2006), to participate in the definition of what this space is, what it means in the context of the wider world of education, and what its opportunities and limitations are. Overall, I'm very happy to be here, and truly excited about what we are all doing here - it's a potentially revolutionary thing...
Incidentally, he refers to his "ongoing PhD (a 3-year process which began in September 2006)". Either he can't count or something's gone wrong somewhere ...
The problems on Wikiversity regarding the fights among users has to do with an ongoing attack by postmodernists and christians on Wikiversity as an institution. My proposal is to strengthen scientific knowledge within Wikiversity. Another proposal is to ban for eternity those users who continuously attack other users and use a postmodern kind of language that makes civil discussions impossible. Also those who support these users should be banned. The support for science should be of prime consideration instead of simply focusing on whether someone has a specific background as a professor at a university. Personally i am also in favour of art and culture, but i think it would be wise to advance science first and foremost. Daanschr 11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
The problems on Wikiversity regarding the fights among users has to do with an ongoing attack by postmodernists and christians on Wikiversity as an institution. My proposal is to strengthen scientific knowledge within Wikiversity. Another proposal is to ban for eternity those users who continuously attack other users and use a postmodern kind of language that makes civil discussions impossible. Also those who support these users should be banned. The support for science should be of prime consideration instead of simply focusing on whether someone has a specific background as a professor at a university. Personally i am also in favour of art and culture, but i think it would be wise to advance science first and foremost. Daanschr 11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a list of words or phases evidencing "postmodern kind of language" that need to be avoided? Maybe WV could sponsor a dictionary of non-words, identify non-books and remove non-courses from the curriculum. All of this seems like a lot of prohibited stuff to defend a "university" that doesn't really do anything, other than intramural infighting, as far as I can tell.
The problems on Wikiversity regarding the fights among users has to do with an ongoing attack by postmodernists and christians on Wikiversity as an institution. My proposal is to strengthen scientific knowledge within Wikiversity. Another proposal is to ban for eternity those users who continuously attack other users and use a postmodern kind of language that makes civil discussions impossible. Also those who support these users should be banned. The support for science should be of prime consideration instead of simply focusing on whether someone has a specific background as a professor at a university. Personally i am also in favour of art and culture, but i think it would be wise to advance science first and foremost. Daanschr 11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a list of words or phases evidencing "postmodern kind of language" that need to be avoided? Maybe WV could sponsor a dictionary of non-words, identify non-books and remove non-courses from the curriculum. All of this seems like a lot of prohibited stuff to defend a "university" that doesn't really do anything, other than intramural infighting, as far as I can tell.
Ottava found that label annoying, and demanded I stop using it. I haven't seen or exchanged messages with Daanschr for almost two years. And yet here he comes, with pretty much the same diagnosis. There are perhaps four schools of thought (or "churches" if you prefer that metaphor) who are fighting for control of Wikiversity.
It's a silly, bloody, and unbecoming fight.
And notably, SB_Johnny took his own advice (that he previously gave to JWSchmidt) and decided to go fork himself and go away.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 26th July 2010, 8:36pm)
Incidentally, he refers to his "ongoing PhD (a 3-year process which began in September 2006)". Either he can't count or something's gone wrong somewhere ...
Granted, he hasn't edited said user-page since 2008.
That seems slightly unusual as you'd expect somebody who completes a degree (having previously announced an intention to do so) would be excited enough to update their page to that effect. Maybe he has taken some time off to work, I dunno.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 26th July 2010, 9:23pm)
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 26th July 2010, 8:36pm)
Incidentally, he refers to his "ongoing PhD (a 3-year process which began in September 2006)". Either he can't count or something's gone wrong somewhere ...
Granted, he hasn't edited said user-page since 2008.
That seems slightly unusual as you'd expect somebody who completes a degree (having previously announced an intention to do so) would be excited enough to update their page to that effect. Maybe he has taken some time off to work, I dunno.
Even stranger, Cormaggio just gave a talk at Wikimania, summarizing his experiences with Wikiversity:
Wikiversity is a Wikimedia project dedicated to learning. In this presentation, I will explore the struggles that Wikiversity has gone through in defining itself as a Wikimedia project. I will use these struggles to illuminate how Wikiversity has developed as a project and a community, and to make recommendations for its further development.
From its inception, Wikiversity’s scope has been negotiated by a wide range of people with a wide variety of perspectives. Originally incubated in Wikibooks and subsequently, after a lengthy discussion and definition phase, set up as a Wikimedia project, Wikiversity has been shaped by different views of what education is, and how a wiki-based, specifically Wikimedia, project should provide for educational activities. These different views and visions have revealed tensions in the question of what and who Wikiversity is for – and underlined the challenges in defining its scope.
I discuss two key critical questions regarding Wikiversity’s scope: what constitutes legitimate participation; and what is considered a legitimate learning resource or activity? Both questions shed light on the realities of organising an open space for learning, and the limits of such a space. Specifically, there is a tension between the various quality control mechanisms that have become part of Wikimedia practice (e.g. deciding that certain material does not meet a certain standard, and should therefore be deleted), and the material’s potential to be a shared object for an individual’s or group’s learning. Resolving this tension inevitably results in a trade-off between quality and inclusivity.
Wikiversity’s scope is wider than that of Wikipedia: as well as the development of content, it is about personal development and the development of a community of learners. I make the case, here, that Wikiversity can learn from innovations within Wikipedia’s development – for example, Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality (NPOV), and biographies of living persons (BLP) – but that it also needs to develop qualitatively new policies that adequately reflect its expansive scope.
Informing this presentation will be a variety of perspectives from academic literature on the practice, provision and organisation of education. Included in this framework will be theories of collaborative learning and democratic authority structures as they have informed the history of open education. This will represent a portion of my recently-completed PhD on the development of Wikiversity.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
From something on Google Scholar:
QUOTE
Cormac Lawler is a teaching fellow at the University of Manchester. He recently completed his PhD on the experience of setting up and developing Wikiversity, a Wikimedia Foundation project specifically dedicated to OER, a process in which he was centrally involved.
I didn't know you could do a PhD dissertation on a personal experience of your own?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 26th July 2010, 10:22pm)
From something on Google Scholar:
QUOTE
Cormac Lawler is a teaching fellow at the University of Manchester. He recently completed hisPhD on the experience of setting up and developing Wikiversity, a Wikimedia Foundation projectspecifically dedicated to OER, a process in which he was centrally involved.
I didn't know you could do a PhD dissertation on a personal experience of your own?
Sure you can.
This Google Knol article (which could easily have been a Ph.D. thesis if I were 40 years younger), is based on a personal experience, a single anecdotal observation in my own life that occurred one fateful day in 1984.
I want my next question to be taken in the best possible way, and I ask with the utmost respect, primarily in the interest of giving you the opportunity to clarify this to the good, so please don't take it as an accusation but rather a necessary question of inquiry. Do you have a COI in writing this article?
There's good Gilbert and Sullivan material here.
(For He is an Englishman from Pinafore)
[Jimbo]: Now I've heard it sort of bruted And it said both loud and muted That there might be C.O.I. involved That there might be C.O.I.
Now I never would suggest it But we need to put to rest it Just the fear of C.O.I. right here Just the thought of C.O.I.
[chorus]: Jimbo never would suggest it But we really need to rest it And stop this why-oh-why right now And the thought of C.O.I.
[Jimbo]: For you could have had some wine there Liked the color of the sign there Or like your Zagat not so high And so have no C.O.I.
I myself ate at Mzoli's But about it know frijoles And that bupkis means no C.O.I. I can have no C.O.I.
[chorus]: Yes, Jimbo did that stubby But it was others made it chubby; Jimmy doesn't know from C.O.I. He's too dumb for C.O.I.
[Jimbo]: Hey! Look, Cirt there is no other That I love just like a brother For the sake of mere appearance here Please deny a C.O.I.
[Chorus]: Yes, and if you're not a mister Jimbo loves you like a sister And his in-ter-est is not incest Just a zest for C.O.I.
Whether or not it counts as yelling, surely it is quite remarkable. When was the last time Jimbo expressed any sort of criticism of a prominent admin in public like this? No doubt he has been known to do so in secret, by e-mail or in confidential admin-only places, but not on a talk page. So he has demonstrated that his continuing involvement might have some slight benefit.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 3:48am)
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 27th July 2010, 6:13am)
So he has demonstrated that his continuing involvement might have some slight benefit.
Get back to us when his continuing involvement has some slight benefit.
One slight benefit is that Jimbo's publically deferential "Deep South" treatment of womenfolk gives yet one more clue that our former "Smeeglova" is indeed an "-ova." And probably is of an age to personally own some, too. And Jimbo knows this.
One interesting thing we know about Jimbo from a good many episodes on WP (think about it) is that he has a knight-in-armor complex. If you claim to be a female pursued by any big-bad anything-else, Jimbo will start getting overprotective. SlimV and outing; Cirt and CoS; Brandy Alexandre and the demons of her past...
Kohs, I know your problem. A: You're the wrong gender, and B: You never complained that you needed somebody to protect you, and always took care of yourself. This more or less applies to a fair number of people who've been stomped on WP.
(Note to Durova: you shouldn't have tried to be a knight in armor...)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
As many readers here know, Adam Brookes (User:Adambro) has blocked 70,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, a Class C network at the Utah State University School of Journalism, where they teach Online Journalism and Mass Media Ethics, another 8192 IPs at the MIT Media Lab, and the entire IPv6 network, world-wide.
Adambro is enforcing a siteban declared by Jimbo Wales, because of some silly song parodies on an obscure personal blog that virtually no one reads.
Hi. I want to know why these lots of range blocks were made. They were used by Moulton, but surely these blocks might affect much more people. Diego Grez 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a large range of IPs and it is a shame. It is a very difficult situation to know what to do. But I think we will probably unblock some of those IPs in the near or distant future. Even if we don't he could always start using open proxies, and he is well aware of this. So before we proceed further we should develop a clear guideline for custodians as to how to handle his edits. Without this guideline there will just be more cries of foul play and further community reviews. Thenub314 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
How about we unblock him, and prioritise the creation of sensible policies that all must follow - I reckon we'd go alright :-) Privatemusings 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The block that was imposed on Moulton is under community review. As far as I can tell, Adambro is still enforcing the absurd lock that was put on Moulton's account. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Some sysops have declared that they can unilaterally declare blocks and bans, regardless of what Wikiversity policy or community consensus says. Moulton should be unblocked immediately. Moulton's good faith edits should not have been treated like vandalism and all the blocks of IP ranges should be cleared. It is an embarrassment to Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation that a scholarly expert in online learning communities is being excluded from Wikiversity by the misguided actions of two capricious sysops. --JWSchmidt 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There are policy reasons for continuing to enforce the block of Moulton, but that does not mean that we could not negotiate with him for some resolution of the situation that is acceptable to both him and the community; my sense was that this might be possible, but not while we have custodians who will act to prevent reconciliation, to make "block enforcement" a priority over benefit to the project. There is a much clearer case, the situation of Thekohser, who was just reblocked by Adambro after I unblocked him upon two findings: that no clear reason for the original block had been established, and that he had demonstrated exemplary cooperation; truly disruptive users don't cooperate with blocks as he did. Whether or not he would continue to be "non-disruptive" is beside the point, because we do not know, in fact, that, not just for Thekohser, but for any user.
However, as to Moulton, when the Moulton account was unblocked by Darklama, I went ahead and unblocked the acknowledged sock, Caprice. In my view, from an unblock situation, reblock should not take place unless new disruptive behavior appears. I had seen, as it seemed that some edits from Moulton might be allowed to stand, an improvement of Moulton behavior. Moulton is a critic, no doubt about it, but not all criticism is disruptive and some is even necessary. I did not see any waiting for new disruptive behavior, just inertia. I did look back at the Community Review that has been cited as justification for the Moulton block, and that Review was, in fact, not conclusive, there was no clear consensus. Continuing to block Moulton, nevertheless, has much stronger basis than the same thing for Thekohser. And until we can find a way to find true consensus on Thekohser, we are not at all likely to find it on Moulton.
A mindless insistence that blocks must be respected, that enforcement of them is a crucial and fundamental policy, flies in the fact of a basic organizational principle: don't create unenforceable rules. We cannot stop Moulton from editing, per se, without causing massive collateral damage, and even if we were willing to tolerate that damage, he'd still find ways around it, and, consider this: someone like JWS could simply put up the same arguments, as he has, in fact, been doing. So what is the block preventing? Rather, it seems to me, it's causing more disruption than it is preventing. Given that, it should have strong consensus, and it clearly does not. Hence we have a few administrators, nearly all that are left as active, running and enforcing personal opinions, with a community that is mostly absent, for whatever reason. I fully understand why Jimbo felt it necessary to intervene! -- even though I don't necessarily agree with the actions he took. --Abd 00:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson demonstrated political insight when he led the civilized world in abandoning Bill of Attainder, having recognized that it's a corrosive and corrupt tool of government that inevitably sinks any regime that comes to rely on it. Shortly after the Founders outlawed Bill of Attainder in Article I of the US Constitution, the British followed suit, abandoning both Parliamentary Bill of Attainder and Monarchial Bill of Attainder.
It's disturbing to witness Adam Brookes and other misguided functionaries of WMF reintroducing this antiquated relic from the rubbish heap of political history into the current practices of Wikiversity. Is this the kind of unwise practice the Wikimedia Foundation wishes to teach to impressionable youth of the 21st Century? Can you imagine what would happen to anyone who tried to adopt and employ that hoary and unsustainable practice in the real world of an authentic 21st Century learning organization?
We know who Salmon of Doubt was. I received the information in 2009. Apparently, SB Johnny had the info from the beginning. I can't reveal things publicly on Wikiversity but there is something on Wikipedia Review that says who the socks were. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrongo! Didn't know then, don't know now. I'll ask on WR though, because I've always wondered! --SB_Johnny talk 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have IRC logs from the involved parties saying otherwise if anyone wants to see how SB Johnny is blatantly lying again. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Horse hockey. I assure you: have no idea who he/she was. --SB_Johnny talk 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you only had dozens of shared page edits with them, worked with them regularly at WR, chatted with them under both names on IRC in multiple channels, and they stated that you were told by them and by KC who they were. Funny how you suddenly feign ignorance. It is amazing to look back at your interaction under his primary name on WR to see how it all makes sense, especially regarding your statements with him about Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The above exchange leads me to a conclusion that without some radical restructuring, Wikiversity is hopeless. Not useless, but unreliable. I will be considering what actions might possibly improve the situation, but it's looking like the damage of 2008 and March 2010 has cut way too deeply, it might not be possible to recover. Cormaggio, it's not about rehabilitating this or that specific user, but about rehabilitating Wikiversity as a community. From my point of view, it's nearly dead, and I could show sign after sign of that. --Abd 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a vibrant community but it is being trampled by three individuals who are unwilling to stop with their games and trying to drive Wikiversity into the ground. If you notice, those same people started a competing community, so it is even in their interest to do that. Without them around, it would be far more peaceful and normal life would resume. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure you disagree, Ottava. However, I see more damage being done here, by active participants here, other than the "three individuals" -- who are? -- than they could possibly be causing. My comment was based on your participation in the exchange, tossing gas on the smouldering fire instead of acting to heal it or at least being careful not to make it worse. There is no justification for your accusations against SBJohnny, even if they are true, which I find doubtful on the face. Starting netknowledge.org is an essential step: basic principle in securing academic freedom: don't put all your eggs in one basket. I'm registered there and I intend to participate and help it be successful, which will not harm wikiversity and should, in fact, help it. Someone who expects otherwise has missed a very important educational principle: one size does not fit all, one set of rules and one oligarchy cannot preserve freedom, diversity is crucial. That is true within the WMF and true beyond it. --Abd 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, the "three individuals who are unwilling to stop with their games" are El Jefe, BanHammerabi, and Dark Waffle. they are three of the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse.
But I digress.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled dramafest...
QUOTE(Wikiversity Colloquium)
You haven't been around long enough to know who are standard members, how they act, and the rest. You have only been around during the summer and only in areas with the trolling and disruption. If you want to say I have no evidence, fine. I don't need to provide evidence to you about it. We aren't here for "academic freedom" or whatever fake concept used to justify some nonsense campaign. Moulton et al have their project. They can stay there and do whatever they want there. Their use of these serves has been reaffirmed as merely disruptive and they have never been part of the true academic community here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"three individuals who are unwilling to stop with their games and trying to drive Wikiversity into the ground"
This is an unusual statement, possibly indicating a failure of someone to assume good faith with respect to other Wikiversity community members. In the interest of allowing the Wikiversity community to discuss and understand the threat that you perceive, Ottava Rima, please list these three individuals.
"they have never been part of the true academic community here"
Ottava Rima, do I correctly understand you to be claiming that Moulton has never participated constructively at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Demanding me to list the three individuals when they are blatantly clear to you is exactly why so many people in this community have lost patience for you. I started out this as your biggest defender. You worked hard to turn me completely against you. You should be proud. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, assuming I'm one of those three people, I'll just point out a few things.
First, I think it's rather snooty of you to say I've "never been part of the true academic community here". I originally got involved here because I wanted to see if Original Research was feasible on a wiki for something like the Bloom Clock. The experiment worked to some degree, but we were never able to get the proper software extensions here to make it really work. (Maybe now that Brion is gone we could ask again, but I don't think the WMF staff is all that interested in WV nowadays.)
Second, I'm not on any campaign at all... in fact the only reason I'm posting today is because you brought me into it (again), and since you've apparently "called the FBI" on me, it's in my interest to respond to your flights of fancy when correction is needed. If you don't want me to respond to you, please just stop bringing me into it.
Finally, NetKnowledge isn't a "competing community" in the sense of a zero-sum game. It's really more or less an experiment to find ways of configuring wikis that will avoid some of the entrenched problems that the WMF's wikis are having due to their particular configurations (and for me, of course, I have better software for the bloom clock). For the record: I don't want Wikiversity to fail, and I'm not particularly happy about what the "other two" are doing either. However, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them to see things your way. I have better things to do. --SB_Johnny talk 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You were drama mongering and backroom dealing with people on IRC months before Moulton was banned. It seems like you are completely incapable of admitting the sleaze that you have pulled on this community. Go keep your drama on your own site and play your games there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you are a Custodian (and therefore in some sense representing the management), you might want to avoid that particular tone, since it's rather hard to tell the difference between your statements and the statements of "the other two" when you do that. No charge for the advice this time. --SB_Johnny talk 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You burnt your bridges here long ago, then you came back to cause disruption against Jimbo. You aren't welcome. You have done a lot to try and bring down this community, probably more than anyone else. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Having warned Ottava Rima regarding incivility on this page, which warning was acknowledged as read by removal, and which behavior repeated, I have blocked Ottava for two hours to prevent the escalation of the behavior. I do not see the comments of SBJohnny, to which Ottava was responding, as uncivil. If Ottava has charges to make regarding SBJohnny's behavior, he should pursue a Community Review, not disrupt Colloquium discussions with them.
This is a very unusual block because Ottava is my mentor, and theoretically has the right to ask me to desist from any custodial behavior. However, my continued status as a custodian, in the extreme, is trumped by my understanding of what protection of this wiki and the community requires.
I am asking for an immediate review of this situation by other custodians. For obvious reasons, I cannot continue as a "supervisor" of this block, it was issued as an emergency measure (or I'd have blocked for 24 hours, probably). If there has not been other custodial attention and action on this before the lapse of the 2 hours, my intention is to extend the block, unless Ottava provides assurance that the behavior will not continue. This is simply because of the sometimes thin custodial coverage of Wikiversity, my preference is for this to move out of my hands as soon as possible.
If Ottava unblocks himself, which I have asked him not to do, and unless there is a showing of emergency, I'll note that this would be a violation of recusal policy, not allowed unless there is an emergency. Any other custodian may ask that I desist, and that will be accomplished simply by unblocking. But please do consider the issues. Evidence will be provided within a few minutes. --Abd 23:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
We know who Salmon of Doubt was. I received the information in 2009. Apparently, SB Johnny had the info from the beginning. I can't reveal things publicly on Wikiversity but there is something on Wikipedia Review that says who the socks were. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We know who Salmon of Doubt was. I received the information in 2009. Apparently, SB Johnny had the info from the beginning. I can't reveal things publicly on Wikiversity but there is something on Wikipedia Review that says who the socks were. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out if that's the "royal we", or more of a "me, myself, and I" kinda thing. I certainly hope he's joshing though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Discussion: Abd's temporary custodianship period is over and terminated by mentor, Ottava Rima.
Standard procedure. Temporary custodianship, termination by mentor, not being recommended for adminship. --Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Done Kylu 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava also obliterates the Block Log to erase the record of Abd's Civil Disobedience...
QUOTE(James Neill)
Ottava, Would you please explain why you've oversighted the block log? -- Jtneill 03:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
And then some fun and games with the log entries...
QUOTE(Wikiversity Block Log Shenanigans)
10:15, 29 July 2010 Adambro (Talk | contribs) changed event visibility of (Block log): unhid content, edit summary, username for 2 events ‎ (reinstate, no reason given for hiding, harms transparency)
00:48, 29 July 2010 Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) changed event visibility of (Block log): hid content, edit summary, username for 2 events
00:47, 29 July 2010 Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) unblocked Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) ‎ (abuse of ops by Abd, his ops will now be removed)
23:40, 28 July 2010 Abd (Talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 hours (autoblock disabled) ‎ (Repeat disruptive editing of pages: incivility outside necessity)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Now, Moulton, how about all this as "Action research"?
Ottava imagines that I was under some kind of stress from being egged on here, or something like that. Not. I was hardly looking here for some time.
What really happened was that Ottava was Ottava, but he'd been pretty much staying away on Wikiversity from his rages or whatever it is that breaks through for him and leads him into a weird, practically suicidal rampage of self-righteous inability to understand what's going on. Then, with no necessity at all, he lit into SBJohnny, accusing him of lying, off-topic in the place of accusation, and generally behaving in a way that would get him blocked in a flash on Wikipedia and, if not on Wikiversity, only if there were no custodians awake.
I happened to be awake. And acted. This could be interesting. I did some routine custodial work before my tools were ripped, glad I got that in. Nah, not "terminated with extreme prejudice." I'm just not able to read that block log any more since he hid the action, but, guess what? It's all still quite visible and quite ... embarrassing. So far, he hasn't revision deleted my warning and block notice, he just removed them without comment, and just possibly he's cooled down enough to realize that this would just be making it all much worse.
His attempt to remove my Request for custodial action, as if it had been a use of tools (which he could reverse by the terms of my probationary period), was another sign he was seriously flopping about. Fortunately for him, he didn't revert war with me when I reverted that. So he was starting to regain some of his senses.
Unresolved question: Does Jtneill have any cojones? I definitely like him and he's been pretty level-headed, but whether or not he has what is needed, I don't know. Diego Grez probably does, but is also a probationary custodian. Really, what we need is SBJohnny back, and all he'd have to do is ask for the tools to be returned, it would be routinely granted, there was no "cloud."
But it's up to SBJ. I can understand if he thinks that Wikiversity is a lost cause. It probably is if Ottava is allowed to continue his reign. Yes. The royal "we," he'd been using it rather routinely, or similar language implying, "le wiki, c'est moi." Greg Kohs knows. Adambro has some problems, but my sense is that he's adaptable, he just needs some guidance.
Like you, Moulton. Anyway, I did what I could within the limitations of the situation and your behavior. You can decide if it made things better or worse. Personally, I think the situation is better: you are now blocked by a local custodian, at least with the Caprice account, and it's clear that this is a local decision, it can be reviewed locally, no more hiding behind meta and Jimbo. It's really the same with Thekohser as well.
In addition, the suggestions I made ad-hoc, that worked well, quite clearly, with Thekohser, as to how blocked users could still make positive contributions in a way that was both efficient and non-disruptive (because it doesn't create a need to clean up and doesn't really, once understood, complicate block enforcement), will, I expect, receive some serious attention, and that particular reform could transform Wikipedia if a WV example paves the way.
(There are further extensions of this concept that could make blocking itself much less necessary.)
There could be even more good come out of this, as other WV policy is developed that might be a bit more realistic and grounded. Or not. It may all be for nothing.
Crystal ball broken.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 28th July 2010, 11:09pm)
QUOTE(Ottava terminates Abd with extreme prejudice)
Discussion: Abd's temporary custodianship period is over and terminated by mentor, Ottava Rima.
Standard procedure. Temporary custodianship, termination by mentor, not being recommended for adminship. --Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Done Kylu 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava also obliterates the Block Log to erase the record of Abd's Civil Disobedience...
QUOTE(James Neill)
Ottava, Would you please explain why you've oversighted the block log? -- Jtneill 03:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 1:32am)
There could be even more good come out of this, as other WV policy is developed that might be a bit more realistic and grounded. Or not. It may all be for nothing.
You've got to be more positive. This is just a minor stumbling block! Once WV has gotten this little dust-up out of the way, surely international collegiate accreditation is just around the corner.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 2:32am)
Now, Moulton, how about all this as "Action research"?
Well, right now it's Action Chess Match.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 2:32am)
Ottava imagines that I was under some kind of stress from being egged on here, or something like that. Not. I was hardly looking here for some time.
El Jefe often lets his imagination run away from him. See my signature quotes, below.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 2:32am)
What really happened was that Ottava was Ottava, but he'd been pretty much staying away on Wikiversity from his rages or whatever it is that breaks through for him and leads him into a weird, practically suicidal rampage of self-righteous inability to understand what's going on. Then, with no necessity at all, he lit into SBJohnny, accusing him of lying, off-topic in the place of accusation, and generally behaving in a way that would get him blocked in a flash on Wikipedia and, if not on Wikiversity, only if there were no custodians awake.
I happened to be awake. And acted. This could be interesting. I did some routine custodial work before my tools were ripped, glad I got that in. Nah, not "terminated with extreme prejudice." I'm just not able to read that block log any more since he hid the action, but, guess what? It's all still quite visible and quite ... embarrassing. So far, he hasn't revision deleted my warning and block notice, he just removed them without comment, and just possibly he's cooled down enough to realize that this would just be making it all much worse.
Javert was on the job this morning and unhid the pair of oversighted log entries.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 2:32am)
His attempt to remove my Request for custodial action, as if it had been a use of tools (which he could reverse by the terms of my probationary period), was another sign he was seriously flopping about. Fortunately for him, he didn't revert war with me when I reverted that. So he was starting to regain some of his senses.
It's not clear if El Jefe will "go in Seine" before Javert does. Lotta Flotsam and Jeffspam in the River.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 2:32am)
Unresolved question: Does Jtneill have any cojones? I definitely like him and he's been pretty level-headed, but whether or not he has what is needed, I don't know. Diego Grez probably does, but is also a probationary custodian. Really, what we need is SBJohnny back, and all he'd have to do is ask for the tools to be returned, it would be routinely granted, there was no "cloud."
But it's up to SBJ. I can understand if he thinks that Wikiversity is a lost cause. It probably is if Ottava is allowed to continue his reign. Yes. The royal "we," he'd been using it rather routinely, or similar language implying, "le wiki, c'est moi." Greg Kohs knows. Adambro has some problems, but my sense is that he's adaptable, he just needs some guidance.
Like you, Moulton. Anyway, I did what I could within the limitations of the situation and your behavior. You can decide if it made things better or worse. Personally, I think the situation is better: you are now blocked by a local custodian, at least with the Caprice account, and it's clear that this is a local decision, it can be reviewed locally, no more hiding behind meta and Jimbo. It's really the same with Thekohser as well.
The epiphany I'm looking for (along with Caprice) is the meta-epiphany of how best to midwife the ordinary epiphany (regarding the lessons learned from the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th Century).
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 2:32am)
In addition, the suggestions I made ad-hoc, that worked well, quite clearly, with Thekohser, as to how blocked users could still make positive contributions in a way that was both efficient and non-disruptive (because it doesn't create a need to clean up and doesn't really, once understood, complicate block enforcement), will, I expect, receive some serious attention, and that particular reform could transform Wikipedia if a WV example paves the way.
Did you notice that when Dar Quaffle moved all those sections of the Declaration of Indignation to separate sub-sub-pages, it not only broke a slew of links, it also made all the contents of those sections unsearchable via the MediaWiki Search feature.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 29th July 2010, 1:15am)
I'm still trying to figure out if that's the "royal we", or more of a "me, myself, and I" kinda thing. I certainly hope he's joshing though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Joshing implies a sense of humour. Is there the slightest evidence that Ottava has enough sense of humour to josh?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Ottava seems to have a very one-way perspective on how a mentorship process works.
Funny, any time I've ever mentored a more junior colleague in market research, during the process I've learned quite a bit about not only the subject, but also about myself.
Abd, your posts, especially the length and rate, make a lot of people call you disruptive. Do you want to be blocked for two hours of a time? Would that be just? Fair? Right? We don't just throw around blocks and warnings randomly. Many people read what I said and completely disagreed with your interpretation. You were also corrected many times during your mentorship that your actions were wrong and you were acting inappropriately. As a mentee, you don't have the ability to judge those things, which is why there is a mentee process. You are supposed to listen to what your mentor says, abide by their statements, and recognize that the only ops you have are an extension of -their- ops. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is exactly JWS's problem, Moulton's problem, etc. You haven't been building any actual content or working in areas we need. JWS is at the end of his line. If/When he goes, will you think that it would then be your right to act like him as you are currently doing? You don't have 4 years of good will built up to really justify that. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava seems to have a very one-way perspective on how a mentorship process works.
Funny, any time I've ever mentored a more junior colleague in market research, during the process I've learned quite a bit about not only the subject, but also about myself.
Abd, your posts, especially the length and rate, make a lot of people call you disruptive. Do you want to be blocked for two hours of a time? Would that be just? Fair? Right? We don't just throw around blocks and warnings randomly. Many people read what I said and completely disagreed with your interpretation. You were also corrected many times during your mentorship that your actions were wrong and you were acting inappropriately. As a mentee, you don't have the ability to judge those things, which is why there is a mentee process. You are supposed to listen to what your mentor says, abide by their statements, and recognize that the only ops you have are an extension of -their- ops. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is exactly JWS's problem, Moulton's problem, etc. You haven't been building any actual content or working in areas we need. JWS is at the end of his line. If/When he goes, will you think that it would then be your right to act like him as you are currently doing? You don't have 4 years of good will built up to really justify that. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Chill, Dude, it's Adoptive Parenting, not Adaptive Parenting.
I think he's got “Being a Mentor†confused with “Going Mentalâ€.
In short, Ottava gives a whole new meaning to Loco Parentis.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 29th July 2010, 7:38am)
This thread is a hybrid of Death of a Salesman, Of Mice and Men, and War and Peace.
Here we are, East of Eden, having been tossed out because we ate of the tree of knowledge. In this cruel world outside paradise, people set upon their brothers out of what they see as necessity.
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley. We even have a little warren piece:
Small: "Tell me about the rabbits, George." Milton: "Sure. Just look out that way, Lennie."
This thread is a hybrid of Death of a Salesman, Of Mice and Men, and War and Peace.
Here we are, East of Eden, having been tossed out because we ate of the tree of knowledge. In this cruel world outside paradise, people set upon their brothers out of what they see as necessity.
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley. We even have a little warren piece:
Small: "Tell me about the rabbits, George." Milton: "Sure. Just look out that way, Lennie."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
WARNING: Tome.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 29th July 2010, 4:50pm)
Ottava seems to have a very one-way perspective on how a mentorship process works.
Funny, any time I've ever mentored a more junior colleague in market research, during the process I've learned quite a bit about not only the subject, but also about myself.
Yeah, but you have real-world experience. On the concept of a sysop, I have something exceeding twenty years of experience. Ottava mentoring me was good for two things:
1. Technical help, which wasn't particularly needed except a couple of times, and others helped as well. 2. A ready restraint for quick desysop in case I turned out to be totally wacko and, say, blocked my mentor, the fount of wisdom and central mainstay of Wikiversity.
Remarkably, he could have handled that without unblocking himself, easily. He'd simply have gone to meta and withdrawn the mentorship. He had that right as a mentor. But, basically, he became unhinged, revealing what was already visible to some, making it much more obvious. I didn't know that he lose it. You know, a sane person would simply have laughed. Unfortunately, having sysop tools seems to not be well associated with sanity. There are plenty of sane WMF admins, it's too bad they don't actually run the place: there is not enough of them and there is no structure to empower them. Old problem, really.
Abd, your posts, especially the length and rate, make a lot of people call you disruptive.
Sure. Happens to anyone who writes a lot, whether it's cogent or not. A substantial fraction of the wikipopulation really does not like depth, they want snippets, soundbites, and stuff that is easily identified as being on one side or other, so they know immediately whether to like it or not. It's confusing when someone actually presents more than one perspective on something, makes them queasy and confused. Here, Ottava complains about length and rate. He has to do both because quite a bit of my activity was brief, avoiding the long discussions that are my trademarked Wall-o-Text. So if I make brief comments, I make more of them.... those comments, though, are in response to others, and I'll bet that analysis will show I wasn't actually dominating conversations. But I'll wait until an actual analysis is done. Maybe. But to what end? Does it matter?
QUOTE
QUOTE
Do you want to be blocked for two hours of a time? Would that be just? Fair? Right?
In a number of his comments recently, Ottava is just plain unintelligible. Wouldn't it depend on what I did? Two hours is the lowest time that is available as a default in the WV block interface. Up from that is 24 hours. Two hours, I hoped, was enough time to interrupt the active incivility and get some independent review. Turns out Ottava didn't wait. I'd managed to scare up Jtneill, but it was too late.
The idea was not to punish. Very much like a sergeant-at-arms conducting someone from a meeting. They can usually go back in pretty quickly when they have calmed down. One of the problems with WV is that far too much is tolerated, allowing the atmosphere to become poisoned. It's paradoxical. In a poisoned atmosphere, disruption festers and grows until the only possible response is blocking or banning. In a sensible atmosphere, short blocks might be quite common. But anyone who heeds a warning, at least briefly pending discussion, doesn't need to be blocked. That's missed, in the insane all-or-nothing thinking. The problem with Ottava wasn't exactly his incivility, it was his unwillingness to stop when it was pointed out. It was actually almost irrelevant that I was a custodian. A warning like that from an ordinary user should be respected! But Ottava was becoming a King. He was dictating to Thekohser what Greg had to do to be unblocked. His Way or no way, even when a perfectly equivalent but much easier substitute was not only proposed, but actually used. Not His Way, therefore unacceptable.
When I'm writing that Ottava is a more serious problem than JWS, I'm serious. JWS is simply far more obvious with his disruption and nuttiness. So far, Adambro looks manageable, but it will probably take some serious confrontation to get across to him that there are proper limits to what he should do. What I've seen, so far, is that he is responsive, willing to consider Other Stuff. Maybe.
But we'll see. One Step at a Time. I'm being told Ottava could lose his ops over this sequence. I don't know. I do know it is a clear test of the community. My goal has never been sanctions, per se, only reasonable restrictions where needed, preferably as voluntary self-limitations. That's one reason why the experiment with Thekosher, still being run on Wikiversity, is so interesting. It's based on voluntary cooperation of a user with those who have banned him and who would want to enforce the ban.
Instead of trying to sneak edits in, the editor simply makes an edit as IP (or with the account in the case of a topic ban) and, with the edit, writes, in Greg's case, "Will self-revert per block of Thekohser." And then promptly reverts. Then other users can review the edit and accept it, if they want. Or they can ignore it. What is very interesting is to contrast this with your behavior, Moulton, and the response. Here there is IP from Thekohser, openly editing and self-identifying, not being blocked by anyone. So far, at least. Now, if the edits themselves were disruptive, there might be some problem, or not. After all, they were reverted! They'd probably have to be so disruptive that revision deletion was called for. Greg, instead, is simply making some positive contributions. It could be bolder than that! I'd certainly expect you to be bolder if you tried this.
One of the very bad signs about JWS was his unwillingness to act to fix the situation. When your edits were reverted routinely as edits by a blocked editor, JWS, instead of simply reverting them back in, taking personal responsibility for them as positive contributions, simply complained about "censorship" of a "scholar." But he had the ability to undo that, if he had the guts. I did it a few times, as I recall. It became clear that JWS was more interested in complaint, in "standing up for the truth," than in actually resolving situations. Terrible trap to be caught in.
If you had done this self-reversion, Barry, the story might be different. Or not. The dislike of you is pretty entrenched, but it could be possible to undermine that and allow the situation to resolve. Depends on what you want. I know that drama is a part of your intention, and I understand and respect that, though I also believe that it should be contained, restrained. You don't do clown magic tricks jumping up on stage in the middle of some poor PhD candidate's dissertation. Unless you've been invited! Everything in its place. Barry.
But Wikiversity was so dysfunctional that even obvious solutions were impossible, and that's continued. We now have JWS arguing that the block tool should *only* be used by sysops to prevent vandalism, missing completely the point of the whole wiki system, missing a half-century of experience with consensus process and where it works and doesn't work, misunderstanding where the WMF wikis largely went off. It wasn't the adhocracy and admin discretion, that's brilliant, it was the lack of structure to handle the situations where adhocracy and discretion break down, as it surely does.
QUOTE
QUOTE
We don't just throw around blocks and warnings randomly. Many people read what I said and completely disagreed with your interpretation.
Like how many? And how "completely?" And how consistently, some of these people have recently argued both ways, depends on who their target is. I.e., JWS argues that you, Moulton, were perfectly correct to use the real name of Ottava, even though it was blatantly provocative, directly defying what Ottava had just requested, and I'm sure that was intentional, and I think you've acknowledged that. And then he complains bitterly about Adambro revealing the real name of Beetlebaum, i.e., him, even though there was far more justification for the latter and Adambro was merely sharing information that more or less flabbergasted him, and which is and remains public on meta, and the IP that Adambro mentioned is trivial to find. Well, which is it? Privacy rights or "right to tell the truth." Oddly, the latter is the same right Ottava is insisting on. He has justified his claims that SBJohhny is "lying," etc., on the basis that "it's true."
It's okay to prove, or maybe even merely claim, that someone is lying when lying is relevant to a decision that must be made. Otherwise it is colossally rude and can be libel, even if true. Truth isn't a defense, generally, with defaming information, unless there is some necessity, which was utterly absent in context, it was completely off-topic, Ottava simply stumbled across some need to mention Salmon of Doubt, and then vomited up an apparently long-held opinion that SBJohhny knew who SoD was. And when SBJ denied that he knew, Ottava went on a rampage.
By the way, Ottava revealed his understanding on who SoD was, to me, and it matches my own suspicion, and I've seen others come up with some evidence on it, as I recall, in private email. But in no way will I pull this out in public and wave it about unless there is a clear necessity *and* proof. Even though I'd absolutely *love* to, it would confirm much of my work over the last year and a half.
QUOTE
QUOTE
You were also corrected many times during your mentorship that your actions were wrong and you were acting inappropriately.
Odd, this has been strangely missing from my Talk page. I'll note this, however: the existing custodial community at Wikiversity has been unable to heal and deal with the long-term damage from the "interventions." That's partly because there is way too little understanding of the issues (on both sides!) What would pass for routine custodial action, then, on Wikiversity, is just about bound to be inadequate. And if someone tries to fix it, they are going to be seen as 'wrong" and "acting inappropriately," even if it's all soundly based and fully respects the limits of what custodians can and should do. No wheel-warring, for example. Preferring to recuse and take a controversy to the community, and only abandoning that when it is proven, a number of times, that the community is mostly AWOL, or really, just Absent.
I advocated certain positions, and it was largely those which Ottava probably has in mind, and I took a handful of bold moves (two?) which were intended to break logjams. Okay, three, the block of Ottava included. The result from the Ottava block is unclear as yet. The other two were designed to convert a community whining about "interference" from Jimbo into one responsible for its own actions, and it worked. Moulton, you are now blocked locally, with one or two responsible custodians behind it. That's a great improvement, procedurally. And Thekohser is likewise. I had a sound basis for unblocking Thekohser, I can easily defend it, the reasons were classical, and the local reblock was pretty interesting, basically assuming that the default condition is "blocked" and that there must first be local consensus to unblock. That's radically backwards, and based on fear of the JimBomb, which has become really stupid. But, again, there is now a local custodian responsible. Progress.
Interference from "above" is only likely if Wikiversity allows itself again to become a haven for what amounts to incivility and/or outing of users from other WMF projects, without establishing clear guidelines for what can and cannot be done, and having the local cojones to enforce the guidelines. Endless discussion does not cut it, period! Jimbo understood that, that's why he acted, I'm sure. Right or wrong, he was looking at possible damage to a user community of much greater interest to him, the WP community, especially the "administrative cabal," which is a labor resource of great value which could disappear quickly if not "appeased." Or, to put it another way, "protected." In order to understand and survive in such an environment, it's necessary to understand how the "other side" thinks, and be willing to find functional compromises that preserve critical values on all sides. it's called "consensus process." And it's known how to do it. And we should have some WV resources on it, shouldn't we?
Damn! Something else to do. Like I don't have enough. Hey, anyone who knows something about consensus process, facilitation, mediation, etc., how about contributing to Wikiversity? Right now it's pretty ragged, but it might get better. And content can be ported to netknowledge.org as well, or originated there and brought to WV, or simply linked. So far, no attempts to bad-site NK. Just some growls of royal indignation from Ottava. That was one of his charges against SBJ, that he supposedly wanted to wreck WV so that NK could prosper. Very sad that someone thinks like that, actually.
QUOTE
QUOTE
As a mentee, you don't have the ability to judge those things, which is why there is a mentee process.
Like three years of hot experience on Wikipedia, confronting administrative abuse and gertting to know and cooperating with many administrators, helping write some of the policy, and doing a great deal of writing on it (which is a big part of how I learn, you don't think I write these tomes just to see a lot of words, do you?), plus bringing in very extensive related outside experience over a period that began before some of these sysop kids were born, plus sending months studying WV history before Ottava offered me ops, is all for nothing. I should just kiss Ottava's ring.
Sure I understand why there is a mentee process. And Ottava was indeed my mentor. It's just that some of what I learned from him he'd have preferred me not to notice. Partly, I learned how not to do things. And the main job of the mentor, to actually direct the mentored editor to desist from certain actions and not to rely simply on vague hints, as well as to suggest positive actions, he didn't do.
QUOTE
QUOTE
You are supposed to listen to what your mentor says, abide by their statements, and recognize that the only ops you have are an extension of -their- ops.
Cool. Nobody ever explained that to me, certainly not Ottava. Is it true? I should only do what I think an immature, disruptive, occasionally explosive, narrow-minded kid will want? Rather, in a situation like this, a mentor would purely be a restraint. Ottava could have said at any time ("Lay off of tool use with anything to do with Moulton or Thekohser") Remarkably, when I warned him that editors could be blocked for incivility, with diff showing it, he blew it off. He did not say, "Do not block me." I think he just assumed that this would be lese majeste, that I'd know not to do it. Perhaps he should read up on Attention Deficit Disorder. I could easily know that he wouldn't like it, but, hey, sane people know that no pain, no gain. We grow through stuff we don't like. Wasn't I doing him a favor?
QUOTE
QUOTE
You are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is exactly JWS's problem, Moulton's problem, etc. You haven't been building any actual content or working in areas we need.
Weird. That doesn't require ops, and I wasn't being mentored as a content creator. And, in fact, I cleaned up speedy deletion tags and various other things, closed deletion discussions, and Ottava gave me no assignments or suggestions, as I recall.
Sysops should not be major content creators, in fact. That's one of the big errors on Wikipedia. Sysops should be people people, who know how to resolve disputes and prevent disruption, whereas content creators will much more tend to just use tools against the "trolls." Sysops, most of all, should know when not to use tools, it is crucial that they understand recusal policy, because failure to recuse is one of the largest creators of long-term disruption on wikis. It builds resentment, fouls the nest. It's pretty simple and should be taught.
QUOTE
QUOTE
JWS is at the end of his line. If/When he goes, will you think that it would then be your right to act like him as you are currently doing? You don't have 4 years of good will built up to really justify that. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I certainly won't have Ottava to rely on as a stable source of support, guidance, and protection.
I came to WV and saw that JWS had been badly damaged by the events of 2008, they turned his wiki world upside down, demonstrated to him that the situation wasn't as safe as he thought. And he responded with continual protest, with levels of disruption, filling spaces with demands for answers to questions that multiplied geometrically if anyone dared to essay an answer. So I rather quietly asked JWS to slow down, start acting more cooperatively and responsibly, instead of behaving like an angry victim. If something was wrong, fix it. I suggested he ask for his tools back, his desysopping was highly irregular and based on outside intervention itself, it seems. Or at least not open. He wasn't interested in hearing any of it, and considered me abusive for even suggesting that some of his analysis might be incorrect. He treated it as a threat when I pointed out that his behavior was likely to end with a ban. Notice that Ottava above is predicting the same thing. Others have predicted it, the real mystery is why it hasn't happened. Nostalgia?
In any case, when this had continued, I asked for a custodian to look at JWS's behavior, and cited some particular examples. Adambro, I thought, would know better than to block, given his prior involvement and the very strong opinion of JWS that Adambro was something only slightly north of Satan incarnate. But Adambro blocked. For blockable behavior, in my opinion. And who unblocked? Ottava. Without addressing the behavior. That's a setup for continued disruption, and it did, in fact, continue and intensify, with JWS filling the wiki with what I'll call the Community Kitchen Sink Review, compiling everthing, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, that JWS thinks was custodiial abuse. For more than two years, like complaining about the sysopping of Salmon of Doubt, when, in fact, SBJohnny had brilliantly handled that situation, leaving SoD with no tools but without disruption at all. Quietly. I saw no sign that SoD had actually done damage as a sysop, it was just this crazy idea that being handed a mop is some kind of "reward." Nope. It's an opportunity to donate some labor, and it turned out that SoD wasn't really interested in that!
So, supposedly, I'm going to turn into JWS? Chilling possibility, I suppose. I'd hang around Wikiversity, whining for two years, over how Ottava was so mean to me. Except he wasn't. He was just stupid. Look, if I whined over every stupid person I encountered, people would run when they heard me, thinking it was a swarm of bees. Besides, I like people, including stupid people. After all, in some ways, we are all stupid. Just in different ways. Someone's got to run the subways or monitor the vandalism noticeboard for hours on Wikipedia or research spam and manage the blacklist or all that great stuff. Yeah, some reward, sysop tools. I can think of much better rewards! Being blocked for three months on Wikipedia was superior.... got a lot done.
Ain't gunna happen. As the brainiest of the female gods (and perhaps the brainiest overall) I think she's parthenos as a metaphor for how women's brains are turned into oatmeal by love and motherhood. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
I just have to point that out, to all those women who've ever said that men think with their dicks. Well, hormones make fools of us all.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Abd, your post is too long to respond to in one sitting, so I'll just cherry pick a couple of relevant passages...
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 9:52pm)
If you had done this self-reversion, Barry, the story might be different. Or not. The dislike of you is pretty entrenched, but it could be possible to undermine that and allow the situation to resolve. Depends on what you want. I know that drama is a part of your intention, and I understand and respect that, though I also believe that it should be contained, restrained. You don't do clown magic tricks jumping up on stage in the middle of some poor PhD candidate's dissertation. Unless you've been invited! Everything in its place. Barry.
Yes, I understand that Jeff is upset at me for using his real name.
Daniel, you know how to use the Wiki Search Box on WV. Please put the following text into the Search on WV and tell me who wrote it...
QUOTE(Find who wrote this on WV)
My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him. He will be a source of problems until he is forcibly evicted, as he has been from most Wikipedia projects, as well as various and sundry newsgroups and forums around the Net.
After you find that page, Daniel, click on the associated Talk Page and find the section with the heading, "Moved from review page." Read that colloquy and post some or all of it here.
Then let's you and I talk like we are colleagues and not actors putting on a clever skit on the school stage.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 29th July 2010, 10:31pm)
Abd, your post is too long to respond to in one sitting, so I'll just cherry pick a couple of relevant passages...
No problem, of course. Pick cherries all you like. Pass me some, please. Yum. My favorite.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 29th July 2010, 9:52pm)
If you had done this self-reversion, Barry, the story might be different. Or not. The dislike of you is pretty entrenched, but it could be possible to undermine that and allow the situation to resolve. Depends on what you want. I know that drama is a part of your intention, and I understand and respect that, though I also believe that it should be contained, restrained. You don't do clown magic tricks jumping up on stage in the middle of some poor PhD candidate's dissertation. Unless you've been invited! Everything in its place. Barry.
Yes, I understand that Jeff is upset at me for using his real name.
It was deliberate, you know that. Your friend JWS -- is he your friend? -- claims that it is uncivil to mention your obvious intention. Whether or not it's an offense here depends on the local rules.
QUOTE
Daniel, you know how to use the Wiki Search Box on WV. Please put the following text into the Search on WV and tell me who wrote it...
I use my real name. Abd is part of one of my real names. It is just as commonly used as Daniel. Bonus question: What's on my driver's license? You can find the other names pretty easily, and I don't care. But as to the following:
QUOTE
QUOTE(Find who wrote this on WV)
My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him. He will be a source of problems until he is forcibly evicted, as he has been from most Wikipedia projects, as well as various and sundry newsgroups and forums around the Net.
My my, nailed you pretty well, didn't he? Now is this supposed to be some kind of violation? Have you expressed a desire to be anonymous? Did you object to the usage of your real name? And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?
JWS just posted the same conundrum in his Community Kitchen Sink Review as if it proved something. Is that "great minds think alike" or is it something darker?
QUOTE
After you find that page, Daniel, click on the associated Talk Page and find the section with the heading, "Moved from review page." Read that colloquy and post some or all of it here.
Decline. Too much work. And no point. Apples and oranges. There are situations where WMF policy allows use of RL information, and the situation there fits that (under one interpretation). You'd have the right to ask for oversight of RL information revealed without your consent. Did you do that? Barry, my assumption has been that you don't mind the use of your real name. If I'm wrong about that, I'd immediately apologize and cease. What's the case?
QUOTE
Then let's you and I talk like we are colleagues and not actors putting on a clever skit on the school stage.
It's not a clever skit? What kind is it? A stupid drama in the loony bin, to keep the patients busy? Been there also. I'm still looking forward to meeting you. I'm pretty sure we will get around to it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:28am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 29th July 2010, 10:31pm)
Yes, I understand that Jeff is upset at me for using his real name.
It was deliberate, you know that. Your friend JWS -- is he your friend? -- claims that it is uncivil to mention your obvious intention. Whether or not it's an offense here depends on the local rules.
Deliberate, yes, but you misinferred my intention. My intention is to promote learning. I don't mind if you learn to infer intentions, Daniel, but your theory about my intentions was not an accurate one. I hope that, going forward, you learn to employ scientific best practices in theory construction, especially when constructing a model of someone else's frame of mind.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:28am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 29th July 2010, 10:31pm)
Find who wrote this on WV]My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him. He will be a source of problems until he is forcibly evicted, as he has been from most Wikipedia projects, as well as various and sundry newsgroups and forums around the Net.
My my, nailed you pretty well, didn't he? Now is this supposed to be some kind of violation? Have you expressed a desire to be anonymous? Did you object to the usage of your real name? And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Tracy Walker is a female. She's an amateur horticulturist who has long had a business website with not much business on it.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:28am)
There are situations where WMF policy allows use of RL information, and the situation there fits that (under one interpretation). You'd have the right to ask for oversight of RL information revealed without your consent.
Oh, I'm not distressed that FeloniousMonk, Dave Souza, KillerChihuahua, and Filll all committed the same offense that they wanted to hang me for. I just think it's ironic that they shrug it off when they do, but consider it a hanging offense when an adversarial editor does it. By the way, SBJ also called me by my real name on my talk page at WV.
Ironically, Ottava (who seems to get a lot of things backwards) continues to accuse me of outing people who are already out and who are routinely addressing me by my real name. Of course Javert doesn't know any of the backstory about Jean Valjean, either.
So that's the case, Daniel. We were all calling each other by our real names, going back some two or three years. It was never a privacy violation then, and it isn't one now.
And if you look it up, I was never banned, either. Tracy Walker blocked me indefinitely on WP, probably because she felt they were losing the argument. And then her buddy, Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) blithely asserted it was a community ban. It was nothing of the sort. It was just IDCab bullying an academic who called them on their bullshit.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The Whiffenpoof Song
QUOTE(El Jefe to Beetlebaum)
Moulton has his own community that he can do whatever he wants with. If we are really so unjust here, why do you still bother to edit? Why not let those who are astray stay that way and go help those who can be helped? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Beetlebaum: The way to return the Wikiversity community to good health would be to count the constructive main namespace edits of all Custodians. If the majority of a Custodian's Wikiversity edits are not directly adding learning resources to main namespace pages then the Custodian's tools should be taken away.
GoatBoy: That's actually a pretty good idea.
Daanschr: I think it is a bad idea. It does nothing to stimulate creativity.
Montana Mouse: Wikiversitans are not creative enough for you?
Daanschr: The problem with User:Moulton is that he insults people and deliberately makes them angry.
Moulton: That's an insult! That makes me angwy. I am vewwy vewwy angwy now.
Daanschr: Moulton also uses abnormal ways of communicating, which he calls drama. And this abnormal way of communicating further infuriates those who have issues with him. That is why I am in favour of blocking him.
Moulton: What? You don't like my atrocious song parodies? Did you know, Daanschr, that it's not unusual to be loathed by anyone? It's not unusual to have fun with anyone. But when I see you hanging about with such a glum, it's not unusual to hear me sigh, I wanna cry.
Daanschr: I have worked at a kindergarten and at a school for 16 to 20 year olds. My main job was to maintain order. Well, if someone didn't do as I say, then this person was punished pretty quickly.
Moulton: That's the spirit. Bully the little tykes. Violence Is the Best Teacher.
Daanschr: Wikiversity is lacking in authority.
Moulton: And I stubbornly refuse to obey your authoritah?
Barsoom Tork: What you gonna do, Daanschr? Punish him?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 8:36am)
Moulton: What? You don't like my atrocious song parodies? Did you know, Daanschr, that it's not unusual to be loathed by anyone? It's not unusual to have fun with anyone. But when I see you hanging about with such a glum, it's not unusual to hear me sigh, I wanna cry.
Bet a dollar to a dime, that goes over the head of 90% of Wikipediots.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 3:19pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 8:36am)
Moulton: What? You don't like my atrocious song parodies? Did you know, Daanschr, that it's not unusual to be loathed by anyone? It's not unusual to have fun with anyone. But when I see you hanging about with such a glum, it's not unusual to hear me sigh, I wanna cry.
Bet a dollar to a dime, that goes over the head of 90% of Wikipediots.
On one trip to Las Vegas, I stood behind Tom Jones and watched him pick up a pot with a pair of threes.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 30th July 2010, 9:31am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 3:19pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 8:36am)
Moulton: What? You don't like my atrocious song parodies? Did you know, Daanschr, that it's not unusual to be loathed by anyone? It's not unusual to have fun with anyone. But when I see you hanging about with such a glum, it's not unusual to hear me sigh, I wanna cry.
Bet a dollar to a dime, that goes over the head of 90% of Wikipediots.
On one trip to Las Vegas, I stood behind Tom Jones and watched him pick up a pot with a pair of threes.
The guy's pretty cool. He must be pushing 65 or 70 and he just released an album of soulful R&B and rootsie gospel covers. His record label is pissed. Of course they wanted to squeeze out some has-been hits for his fan base. That didn't interest him at all. He might be an Elvis impersonator but it turns out he's far more resistant to Vegas than Elvis was.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 11:19am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 8:36am)
Moulton: What? You don't like my atrocious song parodies? Did you know, Daanschr, that it's not unusual to be loathed by anyone? It's not unusual to have fun with anyone. But when I see you hanging about with such a glum, it's not unusual to hear me sigh, I wanna cry.
Bet a dollar to a dime, that goes over the head of 90% of Wikipediots.
If I win the bet, will you spend the 99¢ on Track #13 from this album and send it to me?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
An Invitation to Negotiate Mutually Agreeable Terms of Engagement
QUOTE(Abd at WIkiversity)
I support unblocking Moulton and Caprice immediately upon Moulton's agreement to not reveal, on-wiki, private information about users, as is required by WMF policy, and to refrain from linking to specific off-wiki pages that reveal private information. This is Ottava's expressed position, and I see it as satisfying most of the objections to Moulton's participation. I can understand that some may claim Moulton will break the promise, but, while I think that unlikely, it is trivial to block immediately for a clear violation or to warn for something marginal. I prefer to trust that he -- and any user -- will keep faith with voluntary promises. --Abd 16:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
For the past three years, I have proposed and promoted the concept of mutually agreeable terms of engagement (sometimes referered to as a Social Contract or Community Agreement).
If, at any time, the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse can see their way clear to negotiate mutually agreeable terms of engagement, I am ready to sit down at the negotiating table.
At the present time, however, I am not aware of a neutral venue where we can all sit down and have a collegial and congenial conversation. I would be willing to host everyone at one of the social networking venues that I administer, either at Utah State University or at MuseNet. The former offers better service. My rather low-powered desk-top machines running on my limited speed Verizon DSL link are probably not the best venue. I propose the Elgg Social Networking Site at the Utah State University School of Journalism.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:42pm)
At the present time, however, I am not aware of a neutral venue where we can all sit down and have a collegial and congenial conversation. I would be willing to host everyone at one of the social networking venues that I administer, either at Utah State University or at MuseNet.
Moulton, even you have to admit that a site that you administer is not a "neutral" venue to settle a dispute you have with others.
Anyway, the big news today is that Adambro disapproves of Abd's supposedly ingenious method of IP address auto-self-reversion of edits. And therefore, Adambro has shut off the mode of IP address editing for the period of 7 days, to ensure that his disapproval is effectively mandated. Without discussion, of course.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 1:17pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:42pm)
At the present time, however, I am not aware of a neutral venue where we can all sit down and have a collegial and congenial conversation. I would be willing to host everyone at one of the social networking venues that I administer, either at Utah State University or at MuseNet.
Moulton, even you have to admit that a site that you administer is not a "neutral" venue to settle a dispute you have with others.
I understand that, Greg. But other than Wikipedia Review (also not "neutral") I don't really know of a venue where we can all meet. Do you?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 1:22pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 1:17pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:42pm)
At the present time, however, I am not aware of a neutral venue where we can all sit down and have a collegial and congenial conversation. I would be willing to host everyone at one of the social networking venues that I administer, either at Utah State University or at MuseNet.
Moulton, even you have to admit that a site that you administer is not a "neutral" venue to settle a dispute you have with others.
I understand that, Greg. But other than Wikipedia Review (also not "neutral") I don't really know of a venue where we can all meet. Do you?
Sure. Skype. Yahoo! Instant Messenger. The National Arbitration Forum (fee service, though). You could even try Ning if you want some sort of public record preserved -- you'd just need to find a party to which both sides agree to launch the Ning site. Also, Ning's founder is hot.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Meanwhile, can we take up a collection fund to get Ottava a new computer keyboard?
QUOTE
The "t" on my keyboard hasn't been working. That should have been obvious. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
How can he type "incesuous predaor" without his "t" key?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 1:38pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 1:22pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th July 2010, 1:17pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th July 2010, 12:42pm)
At the present time, however, I am not aware of a neutral venue where we can all sit down and have a collegial and congenial conversation. I would be willing to host everyone at one of the social networking venues that I administer, either at Utah State University or at MuseNet.
Moulton, even you have to admit that a site that you administer is not a "neutral" venue to settle a dispute you have with others.
I understand that, Greg. But other than Wikipedia Review (also not "neutral") I don't really know of a venue where we can all meet. Do you?
Sure. Skype. Yahoo! Instant Messenger. The National Arbitration Forum (fee service, though). You could even try Ning if you want some sort of public record preserved -- you'd just need to find a party to which both sides agree to launch the Ning site. Also, Ning's founder is hot.
Skype might work. I think I now have a machine powerful enough to run Skype with voice and video. Dunno if my DSL has enough bandwidth, though.
This bit in the original looks like a prophecy of Wikipedia:
QUOTE
We have done with Hope and Honour, we are lost to Love and Truth, We are dropping down the ladder rung by rung, And the measure of our torment is the measure of our youth. God help us, for we knew the worst too young!
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Jimbo's lording over Wikiversity again, This time, Privatemusings gets the axe
