Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Wikipedia Review _ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Philippe Beaudette hires a helper

Posted by: thekohser Mon 25th October 2010, 1:15am

Philippe Beaudette, whom most of you know as the guy who wired the no-bid research contract to Q2 Consulting (his previous employer) has http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061941.html on a temp basis, Christine Moellenberndt.

QUOTE
Christine Moellenberndt’s Summary

I am currently attending San Jose State University, in pursuit of a Master's degree in Applied Anthropology. My thesis research focuses around stakeholder relations in Web 2.0. My research analyzes relations between the owners of LiveJournal, a blogging website, and their users through posts made by the company to communicate to the community, the community's response in replies and messages on other LiveJournal communities, as well as interviews with LJ employees and users and anonymous surveys.

This research will answer questions surrounding formation of online communities and the feelings of ownership around those communities. My other areas of interest include identity in online communities, categories of insider and outsider as they pertain to online communities, self-identification, acceptance into these communities, and also into the broader category of "geek."

After graduation, I plan to take my new-found knowledge (and my 12 years of experience in the tech industry, with 10 years of experience with online communities) into the tech sector to assist companies with their understanding and usage of their online customer/user base.
Christine Moellenberndt’s Specialties:

Unique knowledge of online communities, both as a researcher and as a member of several, understanding of the "geek" mindset, ability to translate from "geek" to "non-geek"

Posted by: Zoloft Mon 25th October 2010, 1:22am

So she's the http://anthropology.usf.edu/women/mead/margaret_mead.htm of nerds?

This article is interesting... it gives a little insight into her 'http://www.huntingtonnews.net/national/060325-shns-yoyo1.html' stage...

Kinda nerdy...

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky Mon 25th October 2010, 1:27am

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 24th October 2010, 6:22pm) *

So she's the http://anthropology.usf.edu/women/mead/margaret_mead.htm of nerds?
Only if she starts dating Jimbo.

Posted by: Zoloft Mon 25th October 2010, 1:37am

I'm still finding more references to her http://blog.studentloannetwork.com/repayment/student-loan-debt-affects-economy/...

Also, from http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Masonry/RQ4C/rq4c_96Q4.html:

QUOTE
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 15:58:44 EDT
Name:: Christine Moellenberndt
E-mail:: catwoman@inreach.com
RQFC-topic: Masonic history and purposes
Message:: I'm a Past Worthy Advisor of my Rainbow assembly, and Master of the Grand Cross of Color. I'm doing a research paper on Masonry, and am doing my own research, as my father is considering becoming a mason. Anyone who knows of some good books or articles is encouraged to mail me with their information.


She leaves little paw-prints all over the Internet...

Posted by: EricBarbour Mon 25th October 2010, 1:37am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 24th October 2010, 6:15pm) *

Philippe Beaudette, whom most of you know as the guy who wired the no-bid research contract to Q2 Consulting (his previous employer) has http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061941.html on a temp basis, Christine Moellenberndt.

She's http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=1126461667.......looks like a nerdy young woman to me......I don't see any connections to Wikimedia insiders, though.

Posted by: thekohser Mon 25th October 2010, 2:20am

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 24th October 2010, 9:37pm) *

She's http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=1126461667.......looks like a nerdy young woman to me......I don't see any connections to Wikimedia insiders, though.

And down goes her Facebook page's sharing level. That didn't take her long. I didn't even get to suggest to her my Examiner article about her new boss' technique of no-compete bidding.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Mon 25th October 2010, 2:24am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 24th October 2010, 10:20pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 24th October 2010, 9:37pm) *

She's http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=1126461667.......looks like a nerdy young woman to me......I don't see any connections to Wikimedia insiders, though.

And down goes her Facebook page's sharing level. That didn't take her long. I didn't even get to suggest to her my Examiner article about her new boss' technique of no-compete bidding.

Redhead. Where's Moulton?

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 1:55am

This thread is now the #5 result on a Google search for Christine Moellenberndt.

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 3:54pm

My http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-hires-christine-moellenberndt in Examiner.com isn't going over so well with the Comments crowd.

If Moellenberndt personally doesn't like the coverage, perhaps I could modify the article, or even delete it, but that would require her engaging with me, and the WMF has manifestly declined obligation to engage me.

Anybody else notice how close Moellenberndt is to Moeller / Brandt?

fear.gif

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 3:58pm

It looks like San Jose State hasn't taught its Applied Anthropology grad students the importance of sample selection and control when conducting http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=oUyeOM6xQwO79hg2_2b8LLyA_3d_3d.

Posted by: Killiondude Tue 26th October 2010, 4:45pm

This seems like uneventful news reporting. In Wikipedia terms, "non-notable".

Posted by: Doc glasgow Tue 26th October 2010, 4:58pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:54pm) *

My http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-hires-christine-moellenberndt in Examiner.com isn't going over so well with the Comments crowd.

If Moellenberndt personally doesn't like the coverage, perhaps I could modify the article, or even delete it, but that would require her engaging with me, and the WMF has manifestly declined obligation to engage me.

Anybody else notice how close Moellenberndt is to Moeller / Brandt?

fear.gif


Greg, please please reconsider that article.

Yes, Wikipedia can be evil. But if someone posted that on Wikipedia, I'd delete it on sight.

So, a young girl has taken on a job with an organisation which you find morally bankrupt. Is that any reason for you to victimise her by showing the worst goggle can do on intrusiveness?

Please, tell me you can be better than that? And better than you accuse them of being?

Reconsider?


Posted by: carbuncle Tue 26th October 2010, 5:28pm

I'm with Doc, here. Unless there's something here that I'm missing, this seems unwarranted and likely only to stoke anti-Kohs sentiment.

Posted by: Avirosa Tue 26th October 2010, 5:29pm

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 5:58pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:54pm) *

My http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-hires-christine-moellenberndt in Examiner.com isn't going over so well with the Comments crowd.

If Moellenberndt personally doesn't like the coverage, perhaps I could modify the article, or even delete it, but that would require her engaging with me, and the WMF has manifestly declined obligation to engage me.

Anybody else notice how close Moellenberndt is to Moeller / Brandt?

fear.gif


Greg, please please reconsider that article.

Yes, Wikipedia can be evil. But if someone posted that on Wikipedia, I'd delete it on sight.

So, a young girl has taken on a job with an organisation which you find morally bankrupt. Is that any reason for you to victimise her by showing the worst goggle can do on intrusiveness?

Please, tell me you can be better than that? And better than you accuse them of being?

Reconsider?


What has age/gender got to do with anything ? The person in question is an adult making adult choices. Those choices have included disporting personal information around the internet, the stuff that multitudes of WP BLPs are made of, though those BLPs may use pre masticated low rent journalism to justify the inclusion of 'personal details'. No one who works for WMF should expect any better treatment than the worst that any WP BLP dishes out to its subject. At least Ms Moellenberndt doesn't have to live with a 'teen nude in suggestive pose' photo of herself gracing the 'sum of all human knowledge'.


A.virosa

Posted by: lilburne Tue 26th October 2010, 5:42pm

Is it possible to add "Sux cocks" to that article?

Seriously though what has she done to warrant any article? <ind you it does illustrate the point, which shouldn't be lost on the young, not to allow your real name on the internet.

Posted by: Doc glasgow Tue 26th October 2010, 5:52pm

QUOTE(Avirosa @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:29pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 5:58pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:54pm) *

My http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-hires-christine-moellenberndt in Examiner.com isn't going over so well with the Comments crowd.

If Moellenberndt personally doesn't like the coverage, perhaps I could modify the article, or even delete it, but that would require her engaging with me, and the WMF has manifestly declined obligation to engage me.

Anybody else notice how close Moellenberndt is to Moeller / Brandt?

fear.gif


Greg, please please reconsider that article.

Yes, Wikipedia can be evil. But if someone posted that on Wikipedia, I'd delete it on sight.

So, a young girl has taken on a job with an organisation which you find morally bankrupt. Is that any reason for you to victimise her by showing the worst goggle can do on intrusiveness?

Please, tell me you can be better than that? And better than you accuse them of being?

Reconsider?


What has age/gender got to do with anything ? The person in question is an adult making adult choices. Those choices have included disporting personal information around the internet, the stuff that multitudes of WP BLPs are made of, though those BLPs may use pre masticated low rent journalism to justify the inclusion of 'personal details'. No one who works for WMF should expect any better treatment than the worst that any WP BLP dishes out to its subject. At least Ms Moellenberndt doesn't have to live with a 'teen nude in suggestive pose' photo of herself gracing the 'sum of all human knowledge'.


A.virosa


Sticking some info on a social networking site isn't (mentally) the same as being the subject of a prurient article in what's designed to look like a newsite. (Although I agree, those posting on social networking need to consider it has the same net effect.)

Now, I'm the first to agree there's a parallel with Wikipedia does. But at least Wikipedia does have a metric of "notability" and didn't scrape stuff from facebook, last I checked.

Greg, if you were making an anti-wikipedia point, you've made it.

This now just makes you look bad.
We've had our differences, but I give you more moral credit than this. Please rethink.

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 6:23pm

How about I take the article down when she (at age 33 or 34, mind you) quits the WMF in February?

It's interesting that some of you are saying that my article was sourced from Facebook, but really the key pieces of info were derived from the Scripps Howard News Service, and from Moellenberndt's own professional C.V. on LinkedIn. Or, http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/pf/college/reverse_dowry/?cnn=yes, if you wish.

She's writing a master's thesis on LiveJournal, Inc.'s interaction with its community of users. That's fascinating, I think.

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 7:16pm

One year before reporting that school loans were practically insurmountable, there was the ability to get http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/kethryvis/photos/526695.

QUOTE
Christine's Blurbs
About me:
I can't believe I let myself get dragged over here.

I mean, LiveJournal was bad enough. But I let myself get dragged to freaking MySpace!? AM I INSANE?

The short answer is, I am insane but I suffer from prolonged bouts of sanity.

at the moment my life is very dark. i don't see it getting better anytime soon. for now i hope i can just make it through my master's program and not find myself more broken than i currently am.


Who I'd like to meet:

Here's the thing.

I'm not really here to meet new people.

I'm here to find people I knew, and keep in touch with those I know. I'm not here to discover hot new local bands, or hot new anything bands, or guys who are looking for another notch in their belt, etcetera.

So unless I already know you... chances are I'm not going to friend you. This does actually go double for bands. I'm not the band type. I don't do that scene. So if you're looking for a new fan... I think you might want to look elsewhere.

Stuck up? Snobby? Cold? Maybe. But it's the truth.

Oh, and if you read all of this and add me anyway? Do you really think I'm going to add you back if it's that obvious you don't read, comprehend, and pay attention? Yeah, I don't think so either.


Sounds like she's not exactly "helpless".

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 7:30pm

Then again, it sounds like she could really http://kethryvis.livejournal.com/?skip=20.

QUOTE
lamest of the lame

* Oct. 21st, 2008 at 11:04 PM

i am so freaking lame, it's disgusting.

i have a midterm due tomorrow. i've had it for two weeks. i have nothing written. and i mean that literally.

any other two weeks i'd have gotten it done by now. i'd probably not be happy with it, but i'd at least have words on a page, and didn't send an email to my advisor at 9:45 asking for more time.

i am so fucking lame.

that and the fact i was falling asleep at my computer at 9:30.

all of this just adds to my giant pile of lameness. lame. lame. lame lame lame. i suck. in a bad way.


QUOTE
fuck everything.

* Oct. 23rd, 2008 at 2:51 PM

there are times i wonder why i fucking bother with anything.

you make a mistake, people get jumpy, and i'm worse off than before.

i swear, why do i even fucking bother? i should just do what i wanted to do so long ago; curl myself into a little ball and insulate myself from anyone and everyone.

i'd quit getting hurt at least.


I hope that her experience with the WMF helps restore a more holistic view of herself and her interaction in social environments.

Posted by: anthony Tue 26th October 2010, 8:14pm

QUOTE(Avirosa @ Tue 26th October 2010, 5:29pm) *

No one who works for WMF should expect any better treatment than the worst that any WP BLP dishes out to its subject.


True. On the other hand, I don't think it's our place to dish out punishment for working there. And I didn't see the point of Greg's story in terms of informing the public.

But maybe I just didn't get it.

Posted by: Alison Tue 26th October 2010, 8:43pm

So here's an article posing as 'journalism' in which you, Greg, just dig up the dirt on a new WMF employee just in the door. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?

Seriously - how is this any different from a so-called 'encyclopedia' digging up the dirt on someone? Other than the fact that it's Greg Kohs that's doing the digging and that the target is just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well (but is likely rapidly discovering). As someone else pointed out, she's "non-notable" and a soft target.

I've seen some excellent journalism coming from you, Greg, and superb research - especially around WMF fundraising shenanigans. This? This is just garbage - sorry angry.gif Especially coming http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=31032&hl= that you started and saw no problem with. No wonder she didn't reply to your messages to 'engage'. I'm hardly surprised bored.gif

(cue some non-sequitur about ED sysops. Just dont)

Posted by: Text Tue 26th October 2010, 9:39pm

Haters gonna hate laugh.gif

Posted by: Kevin Tue 26th October 2010, 9:51pm

I'm thinking the same as Alison, Doc etc. This dilutes your other excellent work where the focus is on the foundation.

Posted by: Doc glasgow Tue 26th October 2010, 10:00pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 26th October 2010, 8:16pm) *

...

Sounds like she's not exactly "helpless".



Greg this is the same type of amoral self-justifying shite we regularly get from the worst BLP violators and kool-aid drinkers on Wikipedia.

You are even beginning to sound like JoshuaZ.

You wanted to make a comparison with Wikipedia?

Well, congratulations, you just compared yourself with the worst of them and came our on bottom.


"Physician, heal thyself."

Posted by: thekohser Tue 26th October 2010, 10:27pm

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:43pm) *

So here's an article posing as 'journalism' in which you, Greg, just dig up the dirt on a new WMF employee just in the door. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?

Seriously - how is this any different from a so-called 'encyclopedia' dishing up the dirt on someone? Other than the fact that it's Greg Kohs that's doing the digging and that the target is just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well (but it likely rapidly discovering). As someone else pointed out, she's "non-notable" and a soft target.

I've seen some excellent journalism coming from you, Greg, and superb research. This? This is just garbage - sorry angry.gif Especially coming http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=31032&hl= that you started and saw no problem with. No wonder she didn't reply to your messages to 'engage'. I'm hardly surprised bored.gif

(cue some non-sequitur about ED sysops. Just dont)


Thank you for your compliment about some of my excellent journalism, Alison. I will agree that this current story is not my best work, but it was absolutely newsworthy to a citizen journalist whose "beat" includes wikis, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation. If I weren't covering every hire and fire at the world's largest organization devoted to wikis, I wouldn't be doing my job as the National Wiki Edits Examiner.

How is Moellenberndt's past documented and factual history as expressed -- by her -- to the mainstream media suddenly "dirt" when I organize it into a news story?

My questions, if they were to be answered by the Wikimedia Foundation (which they would not), would be...

Okay, that last question is just a jab, but it does point to how ridiculous some of you are being about a 33-year-old adult's "helplessness" against my "dirt digging". Have any of you -- any single one -- contacted her to see what she would like done with my article?

But, the fact of the matter is that if the Wikimedia Foundation weren't so damn secretive about how they go about internal matters, none of these questions would even be of interest. Or, conversely, if they weren't so public about every minor new hire into a short-term position, it would also be of little interest. As it stands, about 100 unique visitors (so far) were interested enough in this story to open the page it's on, and Google's News reviewers accepted it into their feed as newsworthy. (I am told that is a human-reviewed process at Google.) If this weren't newsworthy, shouldn't Google News have rejected it the way they've rejected the majority of my Examiner stories?

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:00pm) *

You wanted to make a comparison with Wikipedia?

Well, congratulations, you just compared yourself with the worst of them and came our on bottom.


"Physician, heal thyself."

I offered my "opt out by subject of article" proposal. Where is Wikipedia's? I'm waiting to hear from Moellenberndt herself, thank you.

Posted by: Doc glasgow Tue 26th October 2010, 10:32pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 26th October 2010, 11:27pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:00pm) *

You wanted to make a comparison with Wikipedia?

Well, congratulations, you just compared yourself with the worst of them and came our on bottom.


"Physician, heal thyself."

I offered my "opt out by subject of article" proposal. Where is Wikipedia's? I'm waiting to hear from Moellenberndt herself, thank you.


Greg, have you any idea what a $*%%*$& £%^&"£ you look like now?


Words fail me.


To quote Alison (out of context) F*** you.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide Tue 26th October 2010, 10:39pm

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 26th October 2010, 8:43pm) *
(cue some non-sequitur about ED sysops. Just dont)

well, since you brought it up, Alison, contributing to Encyclopedia Dramatica is orders of magnitude more sleazy than anything Greg has done, and being an administrator there is even worse. I'm sure, however, that if you put your mind to it you can figr' a way to thump you chest in self-righteousness, 'bout all the good you've done there.

But yes, I agree, Greg's latest article is a little on the petty side.

Posted by: Text Tue 26th October 2010, 11:48pm

QUOTE
Why is it appropriate for Wikimedians to publicly document my activity on sites like Freelancer.com -- while prohibiting my response in their same forum; but it is inappropriate for me to publicly document a Wikimedian's activity on sites like Facebook.com -- even while welcoming and inviting them to respond? Why do I have to walk on eggshells


Don't stoop at their level! What has this newbie done anyway, other than being not adequately informed about the smoke of lies which permeates the organization?

Or if you want to stoop down at their level anyway, try to convince this Chris character that the organization is a scam and that she should look for something better. Show her some of the stuff about a certain person from High Pole City and the fact that he went to contact the offices in San Francisco, and that he could "contact" her at her university in San Jose while the foundation would do nothing to protect her. Make her THINK. Tough love laugh.gif

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 1:01am

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:32pm) *

Words fail me.

Doc, have you ever promoted or recommended or suggested one of my "good" Examiner articles to anyone, anywhere?

Posted by: Doc glasgow Wed 27th October 2010, 1:14am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:01am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:32pm) *

Words fail me.

Doc, have you ever promoted or recommended or suggested one of my "good" Examiner articles to anyone, anywhere?



WTF?

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 2:13am

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 9:14pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:01am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 6:32pm) *

Words fail me.

Doc, have you ever promoted or recommended or suggested one of my "good" Examiner articles to anyone, anywhere?



WTF?

Just wondering if you're actually a friend of the cause, or whether you're just bitching and moaning about things.

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 2:20am

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:43pm) *

...just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well...

Wow, so you're calling her a "nobody" in her defense, and you're assuming she's so much of a nitwit that she wouldn't do any background research on the organization (or the boss) that's about to hire her for the next four months, even though she's getting her master's degree in Internet anthropology?

That is really streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, Alison.

Posted by: jayvdb Wed 27th October 2010, 2:51am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:20am) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 26th October 2010, 4:43pm) *

...just some nobody who's recently stepped into an org she probably doesn't know all that well...

Wow, so you're calling her a "nobody" in her defense, and you're assuming she's so much of a nitwit that she wouldn't do any background research on the organization (or the boss) that's about to hire her for the next four months, even though she's getting her master's degree in Internet anthropology?

That is really streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, Alison.

How is this relevant? Whether or not she has a good grasp on the WMF, she just started an extremely short contract while doing postgrad, and has done nothing to warrant any media attention, and it is inappropriate to run an indepth piece on a person without their permission or some strong message that hinges on that person. If your story was about 'too much info' on the Internet, your article has a sample size of one. If your story is 'WMF is OMGFBAD', she isn't your target, and shouldn't be the focus. Either way, she is just convenient, and this article only reflects badly on you.

Consider this: how does your article influence the subjects worldview, or the worldview of anyone in your target audience?

Posted by: MZMcBride Wed 27th October 2010, 3:25am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th October 2010, 9:55pm) *
This thread is now the #5 result on a Google search for Christine Moellenberndt.
Can a mod move this to a non-indexed area, please?

Posted by: Zoloft Wed 27th October 2010, 3:29am

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 26th October 2010, 8:25pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th October 2010, 9:55pm) *
This thread is now the #5 result on a Google search for Christine Moellenberndt.
Can a mod move this to a non-indexed area, please?

I have no objection to that, or having my posts deleted.

Posted by: Somey Wed 27th October 2010, 3:47am

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:25pm) *
Can a mod move this to a non-indexed area, please?

Does anyone know if the person in question, this Ms. Moellenberndt, has expressed a desire for that to happen? I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about - I agree that Greg here isn't doing much good for his (our?) cause by focusing on such a minor hire/employee, but that's his call and I'm not interested in trying to shame him over it. Besides, it looks like everything in the examiner.com article is legitimate.

Let's not overestimate the "impact" of a WR thread about someone who happens to have an unusual name, either. I mean, sure, it's conceivable that someone might read this thread as part of a future hiring process, but what's it going to prove? That she did, indeed, work for the WMF, and that she borrowed a lot of money for her education and has been having a tough time paying it all off in a down economy? For a lot of people, those would be reasons to give her a job, not refuse her one.

It's an accident of birth, but it sure looks to me like she's decided to take advantage of the unusual name to increase her visibility in the IT world, not hide from it. I doubt she's all that concerned about this thread, and she may even think it's amusing for all we know.

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

Posted by: MZMcBride Wed 27th October 2010, 5:23am

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 26th October 2010, 11:47pm) *
It's an accident of birth, but it sure looks to me like she's decided to take advantage of the unusual name to increase her visibility in the IT world, not hide from it. I doubt she's all that concerned about this thread, and she may even think it's amusing for all we know.
She's taking it in stride, from what I understand.

Say, what's your real name, Somey?

Posted by: jayvdb Wed 27th October 2010, 6:14am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

Posted by: Milton Roe Wed 27th October 2010, 7:10am

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 26th October 2010, 8:47pm) *

It's an accident of birth, but it sure looks to me like she's decided to take advantage of the unusual name to increase her visibility in the IT world, not hide from it. I doubt she's all that concerned about this thread, and she may even think it's amusing for all we know.

It is a rather unusual name, even in German. This is a city of Mielno in Northwest Poland near the Baltic, that was formerly the German city of Groß Möllen (Big Mountain) until 1945. Möllen = Moellen means "Mountain". Berndt is short for Bernehardt and various variations, a German man's given name meaning "bear heart" or if you will, brave-heart. Goes back to the middle ages.

It's not hard to imagine a surname for a mountain-community person, or perhaps somebody from Groß Möllen, taking on a "Berndt" from somebody named that.

Her geneology, if she knows it, should be interesting. But hell, there's a story in everybody's geneology.

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 10:48am

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?

Posted by: Doc glasgow Wed 27th October 2010, 12:41pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:48am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?


I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.

No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.

With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy Wed 27th October 2010, 1:54pm

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 25th October 2010, 1:37am) *
Message:: I'm a Past Worthy Advisor of my Rainbow assembly, and Master of the Grand Cross of Color. I'm doing a research paper on Masonry, and am doing my own research, as my father is considering becoming a mason.

That is the same lot SarekOfVulcan and his partner hang out with ... International Order of the Rainbow for Girls.

It basically prepares girls to be the wives of masons or go on to co-masonic orders and those such as the Order of the Eastern Star. It really probably is not a Satanic conspiracy, and they definitely do not have sex with vampires, but it does profile the people actually getting involved with the project these days; from scout masters to freemasons ... it is not exactly the kewl, geek, skaterboi crew.

They must be pretty pissed that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/OronoAssemblyBanner.jpg/415px-OronoAssemblyBanner.jpg, they did get there first. Seemingly, that http://www.nhrainbow.org/faq.htm#gay. But, dont mock these people, we need more like them involved ... "all Advisory Board members are required to complete a background check form in order to work with the Rainbow Girls". Those are the kind of standards we need for all Wikipedia admins.

I don't suppose they will have her counting penises on the Wikipedia, or monitoring all the hard core porn uploads in her first week there.

Are NSFW photos suitable if you work for the Wikimedia?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey Wed 27th October 2010, 2:00pm

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 8:41am) *

I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.

No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.

With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].


Oops, you're in the wrong part of the library again — you're in Reference — Ephemerals are in the basement.

You really gotta learn where to shelve it …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny Wed 27th October 2010, 2:12pm

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:54am) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 25th October 2010, 1:37am) *
Message:: I'm a Past Worthy Advisor of my Rainbow assembly, and Master of the Grand Cross of Color. I'm doing a research paper on Masonry, and am doing my own research, as my father is considering becoming a mason.

That is the same lot SarekOfVulcan and his partner hang out with ... International Order of the Rainbow for Girls.

It basically prepares girls to be the wives of masons or go on to co-masonic orders and those such as the Order of the Eastern Star. It really probably is not a Satanic conspiracy, and they definitely do not have sex with vampires, but it does profile the people actually getting involved with the project these days; from scout masters to freemasons ... it is not exactly the kewl, geek, skaterboi crew.

I commented on the blog yesterday, but her resume looks quite good for the job.

Greg looks very silly begging her to comment there. The Godwin/Sue article looked like a step in the direction of "legitimizing" Greg's work, and a few more like that would have only made the foundation look worse for keeping all the blocks and bans in place.

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

Posted by: Text Wed 27th October 2010, 3:20pm

QUOTE
Oops, you're in the wrong part of the library again — you're in Reference — Ephemerals are in the basement.

You really gotta learn where to shelve it …


Examiner isn't a reference source. Wikipedia isn't a reference source.

Examiner allows content about living people. Wikipedia allows content about living people.

Examiner hosts content about people that can't be altered once it's written, without possibly obtaining the permission of the author. Wikipedia allows content about living people that can be altered by anyone.

Examiner isn't popular among the common Joes. Wikipedia is popular among the common Joes.

Examiner can potentially spread libel against real people. Wikipedia can potentially spread libel against real people at a greater magnitude.

Examiner isn't relevant to common Joe due to lower ranks on searches. Wikipedia is relevant to common Joe due to higher ranks on searches, and the content gets copied by scrapers.

Common Joe uses wikipedia as a source, so he believes what's written there. Well, too bad, of course. If he donates without even looking around to know the system better, then double bad!

noooo.gif

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 3:47pm

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 8:41am) *

I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.

No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.

With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].

I trust that your logic fails to consider that I sign my pieces on Examiner with my real name, such that attorneys for my subjects can contact me with any potential libel torts. They would also be able to contact Examiner itself, as I've been professionally vetted by their human resources process.

Let me know the day that a Wikipedia article is ever attributed to one person who signs their real name to the article, such that an attorney would have a clear path for legal action. Also, let me know when the Wikimedia Foundation assumes liability for the content its vetted writers choose to publish.

Doc, are you just trying to sound like a nitwit for giggles, or are you really this incapable of making apt comparisons?

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 3:57pm

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:12am) *

I commented on the blog yesterday, but her resume looks quite good for the job.

Greg looks very silly begging her to comment there. The Godwin/Sue article looked like a step in the direction of "legitimizing" Greg's work, and a few more like that would have only made the foundation look worse for keeping all the blocks and bans in place.

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

What exactly is her job? How do you know what her work would detail, to draw the conclusion about whether or not her resume is a good fit? I'd love to know -- I'm not being facetious. Beaudette only elaborated that she would be "beginning with internal protocols, and building out scalable support systems". What does that mean?

Sorry that I look silly asking for the subject of a news article to feel welcome to participate in the discussion, and even offering to modify or even potentially delete content that they feel is unfair. Do you really think that my articles on Godwin and about Gardner were putting me on the verge of being accepted back into various Wikimedia communities as a "legitimate" journalist? Wow! I didn't know I was so close. Too bad I really blew it with this one.

She is 33 years old. She'll be 34 in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: powercorrupts Wed 27th October 2010, 4:06pm

Perhaps it's a new Chapter in Wikimedia's development? Only time will tell.

They can win, but they can't hide.


Posted by: Daniel Brandt Wed 27th October 2010, 4:12pm

Let's pretend that the situation was something like this:

a. Greg doesn't use his real name in his byline, but is known as "SlimVirgin" or some such silly screen name, and is next to impossible to track down. Moreover, he has the unquestioning support of the "founder" of examiner.com the way that SlimVirgin had the support of Jimbo in 2005.

b. About 10 friends of Greg/Slim/Jimbo jump on the article and dig up all sorts of stuff, and add it to the article.

c. The subject of the article makes it known that she wasn't asked to comment on the article and discovered it by accident, and would like the article deleted.

d. Once this happens, another 10 nerds add even more obscure stuff to the article to teach her a lesson, going back to incidents that happened 40 years ago. They all use screen names and are difficult to track down.

e. Dozens of "made for AdSense" sites begin scraping the article regularly, insuring that every little piece of information ever added lives forever, somewhere on the web.

f. Examiner.com changes it's name to Encyclopedia Examiner, and is one of the top sites on the web. Most mainstream commentators consider it the best thing to happen since peanut butter.

If you assume all of the above, then you can compare Greg's article to the BLP situation on Wikipedia.

Having said that, I think there is a real problem with this woman joining the Foundation. The problem is that she has absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the privacy issues that are presented by social networking, or the accountability issues raised by allowing top admins at Wikipedia to use screen names. The Foundation needs to wake up to this issue. Since her name is so unusual, Greg's piece about her and this thread on WR will help to educate her.

That's a good thing, because she sure as hell won't get any education from her co-workers at the Foundation.

Posted by: Cedric Wed 27th October 2010, 4:23pm

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:48am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?


I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.

No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.

With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].

Since when is the Examiner.com in the same position as Wikipedia simply because both appear online? This is like saying it is appropriate to feed an African elephant the same diet that would serve for a marmoset simply because both happen to be mammals. That being said, I am of the same mind as Somey here. It seems to me that Greg probably erred here in terms of emphasis, not basic propriety.

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:12am) *

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

This is all true enough, but overlooks the fact that the Frei Kultur Kinder expect to held to a higher standard of protection than ordinary mortals because they perceive themselves engaged in a holy mission to deliver "the sum of all human knowledge" to "every single person on the planet". This is yet another manifestation of the wikipediot hypocrisy that we have been observing for years.

Posted by: anthony Wed 27th October 2010, 6:07pm

QUOTE

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Steven Walling <swalling@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today Wikimedia Foundation Exec. Director Sue Gardner will be in this
> week's installment of IRC office hours at 23:00 UTC. As usual, the
> format is completely open, so bring any burning questions you might have
> to the #wikimedia-office channel on irc.freenode.net. Local times and
> instructions for accessing the chat, including for those without an IRC
> client, can be found on Meta at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours. The log of the
> discussion will be publicly posted on that page afterwards for those
> cannot attend.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> --
> Steven Walling
> Wikimedia Foundation Fellow
> (wikimediafoundation.org)


1) "As usual, the format is completely open" laugh.gif
2) Wikimedia Foundation Fellow?

Posted by: thekohser Wed 27th October 2010, 6:10pm

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:07pm) *

2) Wikimedia Foundation Fellow?

http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/15/wikimedia-foundation-fellowship-program/ about the Community Fellowship scam.

Posted by: anthony Wed 27th October 2010, 6:14pm

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours, Friday 2010-11-05 22:00 UTC (local times) Philippe Beaudette and the fundraising staff Open format

Posted by: SB_Johnny Wed 27th October 2010, 7:01pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:57am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:12am) *

I commented on the blog yesterday, but her resume looks quite good for the job.

Greg looks very silly begging her to comment there. The Godwin/Sue article looked like a step in the direction of "legitimizing" Greg's work, and a few more like that would have only made the foundation look worse for keeping all the blocks and bans in place.

The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.

What exactly is her job? How do you know what her work would detail, to draw the conclusion about whether or not her resume is a good fit? I'd love to know -- I'm not being facetious. Beaudette only elaborated that she would be "beginning with internal protocols, and building out scalable support systems". What does that mean?

I could be wrong, but I got the impression she was in the community organizing dept. That actually makes several modicums of sense if you've ever worked in that field.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:57am) *

Sorry that I look silly asking for the subject of a news article to feel welcome to participate in the discussion, and even offering to modify or even potentially delete content that they feel is unfair. Do you really think that my articles on Godwin and about Gardner were putting me on the verge of being accepted back into various Wikimedia communities as a "legitimate" journalist? Wow! I didn't know I was so close. Too bad I really blew it with this one.

That's not what I said rolleyes.gif. The Wikimedia communities will almost certainly just keep banning you, but my hope was that they'd look even sillier for doing so.

Again, I don't think you've done a horrible thing or anything, it just looks a bit petty. And the reason you look silly is because she probably just doesn't care.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:57am) *

She is 33 years old. She'll be 34 in a couple of weeks.

Cool. Party on!

Posted by: Kelly Martin Wed 27th October 2010, 10:43pm

I think it's perfectly legitimate to publicly question the propriety of any staff hire at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's fairly obvious that they hire people because they like them, and find jobs for them after they've been hired (or at least pretend to). So it's perfectly reasonable to question how this woman got this job, what exactly she's supposed to be do, and even why Baudette needs an assistant.

Greg's approach may be less than ideal, but the idea that this woman is, or ought to be, exempt from scrutiny is absurd. This is all part and parcel of working for a charitable organization.

Posted by: powercorrupts Wed 27th October 2010, 11:35pm

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:43pm) *

It's fairly obvious that they hire people because they like them, and find jobs for them after they've been hired (or at least pretend to).


Why not? It's how they fill their admin ranks. Upwardly mobile and ethically challenged people have a kind of aura which they can mutually sense. You can take it for granted that no WFoundation employee will come from a genuinely charitable background. Genuinely good people wouldn't quite fit their particular corporate ethos.

Posted by: jayvdb Thu 28th October 2010, 1:03am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:48am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm) *

...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...

How did she get onto CNN.com, then?

By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.

So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?

It appears that she was willingly interviewed by the CNN reporter. It is obvious that she was not a willing focus of your piece.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 27th October 2010, 10:43pm) *

I think it's perfectly legitimate to publicly question the propriety of any staff hire at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's fairly obvious that they hire people because they like them, and find jobs for them after they've been hired (or at least pretend to). So it's perfectly reasonable to question how this woman got this job, what exactly she's supposed to be do, and even why Baudette needs an assistant.

Greg's approach may be less than ideal, but the idea that this woman is, or ought to be, exempt from scrutiny is absurd. This is all part and parcel of working for a charitable organization.

I can agree with this.

Posted by: thekohser Thu 28th October 2010, 1:15am

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:03pm) *

It appears that she was willingly interviewed by the CNN reporter. It is obvious that she was not a willing focus of your piece.


If that's the new standard for media inclusion, then I'm sure folks like Tony Hayward will appreciate that. After all, he just wanted to return home and get his life back.

Now that the WMF and all its staff are apparently instructed not to engage me, I guess that means (by the Jayvdb Rule) I am disallowed from writing about any of them, ever. I suppose I'll go ask Examiner to shut down my account.

Posted by: anthony Thu 28th October 2010, 2:03am

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 7:01pm) *

Again, I don't think you've done a horrible thing or anything, it just looks a bit petty. And the reason you look silly is because she probably just doesn't care.


After reading the CNN story (about the prudent saver) and Googling "average student loan debt" ($23,186 among graduating seniors), I finally figured out why I thought he looked silly.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey Thu 28th October 2010, 2:04am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:15pm) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:03pm) *

It appears that she was willingly interviewed by the CNN reporter. It is obvious that she was not a willing focus of your piece.


If that's the new standard for media inclusion, then I'm sure folks like Tony Hayward will appreciate that. After all, he just wanted to return home and get his life back.

Now that the WMF and all its staff are apparently instructed not to engage me, I guess that means (by the Jayvdb Rule) I am disallowed from writing about any of them, ever. I suppose I'll go ask Examiner to shut down my account.


Not so fast, Buster !!!

Not until we get our jollies dragging you through 14 or 15 AfD proceedings …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser Thu 28th October 2010, 12:50pm

Moulton's media ethicist colleague has weighed in (on Barry's http://www.facebook.com/bkort), and the ruling is...

IT WAS A HATCHET JOB!

Therefore, a http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-hires-christine-moellenberndt of the article is now published on Examiner!

Now, the ethical question is... what to do with all the comments that referenced the old version of the article?

Posted by: Zoloft Thu 28th October 2010, 2:18pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th October 2010, 5:50am) *

Moulton's media ethicist colleague has weighed in (on Barry's http://www.facebook.com/bkort), and the ruling is...

IT WAS A HATCHET JOB!

Therefore, a http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-hires-christine-moellenberndt of the article is now published on Examiner!

Now, the ethical question is... what to do with all the comments that referenced the old version of the article?

If it was my article, I'd can the comments and close commenting. You modified the article heavily in response to the comments, so they are now commenting on something that's not there any more. You noted that in the story, so you're done. Move on to your next scoop.

If there's any consolation, at least you are being compared to Sherlock Holmes (albeit in a blog post that quotes him as a 'high-functioning sociopath').

Posted by: thekohser Thu 28th October 2010, 2:51pm

I've deleted the comments and replies that focused criticism on the original article, but I am not one to "close comments" on an article. Examiner's comment monitoring application is nice, in that I can see the most recent comment left on any of my articles, regardless of when it was published. So, if the tone gets nasty again on this article (or any), I will still see it, even if it's months down the road.

Posted by: Zoloft Thu 28th October 2010, 5:48pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th October 2010, 7:51am) *

I've deleted the comments and replies that focused criticism on the original article, but I am not one to "close comments" on an article. Examiner's comment monitoring application is nice, in that I can see the most recent comment left on any of my articles, regardless of when it was published. So, if the tone gets nasty again on this article (or any), I will still see it, even if it's months down the road.

This is why you're not a troll. Trolls don't have ethics, or listen to critics. Trolls never admit to error of any sort.

Ottava, take note of the difference.

Posted by: thekohser Thu 28th October 2010, 7:16pm

It's curious, because when I published the original piece about Moellenberndt, I had a gut feeling that I had gone too far in casting her in a bad light. Based on my subsequent readings of her LiveJournal blog, I feel quite strongly that she is a particularly bad choice for working with the Wikimedia "community" as we see it, but there wasn't a need to turn that personal opinion into a news piece.

I do apologize for my actions to those I hurt or offended.

I continue to believe that Philippe Beaudette is ill-suited for any role that manages other people, because he is not honest or open about his accountable actions.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Thu 28th October 2010, 8:35pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th October 2010, 3:16pm) *

I do apologize for my actions to those I hurt or offended.

What about those who were annoyed or slightly disappointed?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th October 2010, 3:16pm) *

I continue to believe that Philippe Beaudette is ill-suited for any role that manages other people, because he is not honest or open about his accountable actions.

Yup.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank Fri 29th October 2010, 5:34pm

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:00pm) *

Greg this is the same type of amoral self-justifying shite we regularly get from the worst BLP violators and kool-aid drinkers on Wikipedia.

You are even beginning to sound like JoshuaZ.

Did you know that JoshuaZ has a http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zelinsky/linda-lingles-faux-consti_b_638733.html?

Posted by: thekohser Sun 7th November 2010, 3:32am

Moellenberndt is starting to earn her keep.

A couple of weeks ago, our old pal Calton Bolick (or someone impersonating him) was http://blogs.ktla.com/news_custom_eric/2010/10/man-fired-for-wearing-bush-sweatshirt-at-obama-rally/comments/page/6/#comments on a news blog, as follows:

QUOTE
Reading the idiotic postings on this thread by the usual cast of GOP NASCAR invisible beings in the sky worshipping jackoffs makes me even more convinced that China will own our asses soon...and I welcome it.

Calton Bolick
Wikipedia Admin

Posted by: Calton Bolick | October 22, 2010 at 07:28 PM


Note that Calton isn't actually a Wikipedia administrator (saints be praised).

So, Christine http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=392312182 Calton to clarify his status:

QUOTE
Admin, or not Admin?

On your Talk page, you state in item #1 that you are not a Wikipedia admin. However, in your recent posting on the KTLA blog[1], you sign off as a Wikipedia Admin. When discussing your relationship to any website, you may want to ensure that you refer to yourself as the correct title to avoid any embarrassment to yourself or any inconvenience to the site you are referencing. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at readers at wikimedia.org. Thanks! Christine (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Moellenberndt is also working on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=395230514 techniques, one by one.