Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! Options

[Rootology]

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...=User%3AMoulton

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity..._for_incivility

Block of Moulton for incivility

After discussion with other admins, in which I was requested to personally make this block, I have indef blocked Moulton from this project. It is my belief that he was not here in a good faith effort to create learning materials, but rather was here to carry out his ongoing campaign against people who he thinks treated him unfairly at Wikipedia. After reviewing his case at Wikipedia, I think this is clearly not the case: he was properly blocked at Wikipedia, and should be blocked on sight from any Wikimedia project where he surfaces with a similar agenda.

I would recommend that a significant number of the attack pages be deleted, and the project protected at least for now, pending a good community discussion of what something like this should look like.

There are always difficult growing pains for young commuities; I have seen it in many languages and many projects. I encourage Wikiversity to review the "ethics" project - which, it seems to me could be an interesting project if handled appropriately - with an eye towards developing principles for dealing with such projects in the future. One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals. I would also like to encourage you to consider clarifying the scope of Wikiversity to make it more clear that it is not a place for people to come and build attack pages in the guise of learning materials.

In any event, I hope that my action here will be viewed as helpful. I did not act quickly, but only after discussion with important people, and only after hearing that 3 bureaucrats support this action. It is not my intention to be the "God King" of Wikiversity, although I do request that this block only be overturned upon a very careful consideration of the possible implications for the future of the project.

The first major internal conflict and ban is always tough. My thoughts are with you, and I wish you well.--Jimbo Wales 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[Ottava]

I just had all parties agree to a three day work exercise for Moulton followed by a peer review process in order to discuss community issues and the rest.

Sigh.

Don't I have the best luck with timing.

If he would have only done this a day or two before, I wouldn't have wasted so many hours putting together all the necessary parts.

[the fieryangel]

I just had all parties agree to a three day work exercise for Moulton followed by a peer review process in order to discuss community issues and the rest.

Sigh.

Don't I have the best luck with timing.

If he would have only done this a day or two before, I wouldn't have wasted so many hours putting together all the necessary parts.

I wrote about the "Moulton" aspects of this situation on the other thread. But the Jimbo aspects are quite another thing: he's not a Godking, but he's going to be one just this once? And although he's not a GodKing, Moulton is effectively "banished from the realm"?

Constitutional Monarch, Jimbo? Do they banish people?

This is rather a radical turn of events, in any case...

[Ottava]

I wrote about the "Moulton" aspects of this situation on the other thread. But the Jimbo aspects are quite another thing: he's not a Godking, but he's going to be one just this once? And although he's not a GodKing, Moulton is effectively "banished from the realm"?

Constitutional Monarch, Jimbo? Do they banish people?

This is rather a radical turn of events, in any case...

We do not know who the "three bureaucrats" were. We do not know who he was talking to. As many people have said, they saw this coming. Jimbo has the ability to move between projects based on his special status, so he was a likely person to turn to.

[dtobias]

Constitutional Monarch,[/i] Jimbo? Do they banish people?

I remember as a kid on my first trip outside the United States, to Canada, I actually had some concerns after seeing that the coins of that country featured a Queen, given that my past experience with queens was dominated by Alice in Wonderland's Queen of Hearts, who was prone to yelling "Off with your head!"... I really thought that when visiting a country with a queen, you were in constant risk of having her see you in the street, decide she doesn't like you, and have you executed.

----------------
Now playing: Melissa Etheridge - I Want To Come Over
via FoxyTunes

[Shalom]

I wrote about the "Moulton" aspects of this situation on the other thread. But the Jimbo aspects are quite another thing: he's not a Godking, but he's going to be one just this once? And although he's not a GodKing, Moulton is effectively "banished from the realm"?

Constitutional Monarch, Jimbo? Do they banish people?

This is rather a radical turn of events, in any case...

We do not know who the "three bureaucrats" were. We do not know who he was talking to. As many people have said, they saw this coming. Jimbo has the ability to move between projects based on his special status, so he was a likely person to turn to.

There are only five bureaucrats on Wikiversity. Of the "three bureaucrats" involved, SB Johnny and Cormaggio are almost certainly two, as they support the ban later in the discussion. The other might be either Mu301 or Erkan Yilmaz. Sebmol has been inactive since May 2008.

Except for SB Johnny, I don't recognize any of these names.

[wikiwhistle]

I wrote about the "Moulton" aspects of this situation on the other thread. But the Jimbo aspects are quite another thing: he's not a Godking, but he's going to be one just this once? And although he's not a GodKing, Moulton is effectively "banished from the realm"?

Constitutional Monarch, Jimbo? Do they banish people?

This is rather a radical turn of events, in any case...

As an aside, a similar thing took place with the block of Peter Damian. I don't know what Moulton's edits were like on WV, but it seems a shame as I thought he was getting on a lot better with the editors there than at WP.

[Ottava]

There are only five bureaucrats on Wikiversity. Of the "three bureaucrats" involved, SB Johnny and Cormaggio are almost certainly two, as they support the ban later in the discussion. The other might be either Mu301 or Erkan Yilmaz. Sebmol has been inactive since May 2008.

Except for SB Johnny, I don't recognize any of these names.

The definition of support can mean a lot of things, so lets not focus too heavily on this. The community knew about some problems Jimbo was having with Moulton weeks ago.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Peter Damian]

This is better than Harold Pinter.

My theory of the source of our differences is that it's the basic science vs politics dichotomy, which also manifests as the observation vs control dichotomy (in feedback control theory), as the functions vs rules dichotomy (as in systems theory), and as the candor vs hypocrisy dichotomy (as in theology). In other words, if I say, "Be ye not deceived," and you respond, "How can we get to the ground truth?", I answer "By means of the protocols of the scientific method and the tools of epistemology." If you ask, "How may we resolve a conflict?", I respond "By applying the techniques of Action Research and Conflict Resolution, as proposed by subject-matter experts in those fields." But I cannot compel my antagonist to become a scholar if his preference is to be a thespian. But if his preference is to be a thespian, then I propose to apply the analytical tools of Drama Theory to study the resulting lunatic social drama. —Moulton 06:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to do something to stop this from continuing, or should one expect to be subject to repeated and unending personal attacks at this project? Salmon of Doubt 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to enter into a mutually agreeable Social Contract, setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement? —Moulton 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Salmon of Doubt 13:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Salmon, if you don't respond to him, than he will probably leave you alone. You could spend your time in a different way here on Wikiversity.--Daanschr 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I will return to my policy of ignoring everything he writes. Salmon of Doubt 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

This is got to be an embarrassment for WMF.

Jimbo Wales' sole contribution to Wikiversity since its inception:

[[Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales]]

[Milton Roe]

This is got to be an embarrassment for WMF.

Jimbo Wales' sole contribution to Wikiversity since its inception:

[[Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales]]

Well, what the hell did you expect him to do, write articles on quantum mechanics? It's Jimbo.

[GlassBeadGame]

This is got to be an embarrassment for WMF.

Jimbo Wales' sole contribution to Wikiversity since its inception:

[[Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales]]

Well, what the hell did you expect him to do, write articles on quantum mechanics? It's Jimbo.

That is funniest thing you ever wrote Milton. Congrats Moulton, an unjust personal block from Mr. Wales deserves a place on your CV.

[The Joy]

And yet another case where the independence of Foundation projects from non-community individuals like Jimbo proves to be an illusion. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Shalom]

If I were a Wikiversity admin/custodian, why would I want to invite Jimbo to block one of my users? Wikinews and Wikibooks dumped Jimbo as an admin; Wikiversity just accepted him.

[Ottava]

If I were a Wikiversity admin/custodian, why would I want to invite Jimbo to block one of my users? Wikinews and Wikibooks dumped Jimbo as an admin; Wikiversity just accepted him.

As a Wikiversity custodian, I was a little taken by surprised by the timing. Moulton was just about to enter into a three day focus on an editing project and then enter into a "peer review" discussion to help build trust between him and others of the community, including some that he had conflicts with before. I was given approval by the other custodians to continue this on his talk page.

[Shalom]

If I were a Wikiversity admin/custodian, why would I want to invite Jimbo to block one of my users? Wikinews and Wikibooks dumped Jimbo as an admin; Wikiversity just accepted him.

As a Wikiversity custodian, I was a little taken by surprised by the timing. Moulton was just about to enter into a three day focus on an editing project and then enter into a "peer review" discussion to help build trust between him and others of the community, including some that he had conflicts with before. I was given approval by the other custodians to continue this on his talk page.

When Jimbo does things like this on Wikipedia we can say he's out of touch, but at least he shows up every once in a blue moon. This was completely out of left field. If I were you, Ottava, I'd feel betrayed by admins who with one hand promoted mediation and with the other hand banned the guy you were trying to help.

[everyking]

They should unblock Moulton, tell Jimbo to butt out of their community affairs, and then make their own decision about how to handle Moulton. Jimbo apparently wasn't even aware of the circumstances, as indicated by Ottava's comments, and was probably just pursuing somebody else's grudge against Moulton.

[gomi]

If [Jimbo] would have only done this a day or two before, I wouldn't have wasted so many hours ...

Now perhaps you'll realize: all time spent on Wikipedia and related project is wasted!

[Giggy]

This is got to be an embarrassment for WMF.

Jimbo Wales' sole contribution to Wikiversity since its inception:

[[Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales]]

Despite my not usually being a fan of Jimbo's using his monarch powers to ban people, I must say his contributions to Wikiversity have been more valuable than yours.

They should unblock Moulton, tell Jimbo to butt out of their community affairs, and then make their own decision about how to handle Moulton. Jimbo apparently wasn't even aware of the circumstances, as indicated by Ottava's comments, and was probably just pursuing somebody else's grudge against Moulton.

The correct thing to do, even if they told Jimbo to butt out, would still be to block Moulton for pretty much the reasons given by Jimbo.

[Moulton]

The correct thing to do, even if they told Jimbo to butt out, would still be to block Moulton for pretty much the reasons given by Jimbo.

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

The above is the very first written law in the history of human civilization, written by Hammurabi of Babylonia, some 3750 years ago.

It is now up to Jimbo Wales to come to Wikiversity and submit his evidence, reasoning, and analysis to the Assembled Community for scientific, journalistic, and judicial peer review, in accordance with Wikiversity Policy.

[thekohser]

Block of Moulton for incivility
...The first major internal conflict and ban is always tough... --Jimbo Wales 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But once you've done it, every time you do it afterwards feels natural, even wonderful and amazing.

What, did Jimbo just pop the Wikiversity's cherry?

This is ridiculous, alarming, and completely predictable.

Is it any surprise that Jimbo blocked someone who was Participant #2 and actively crafting a forum entitled, "Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia"?

I mean, how much more of a shot at Jimbo did it have to be?!

[Kelly Martin]

They should unblock Moulton, tell Jimbo to butt out of their community affairs, and then make their own decision about how to handle Moulton. Jimbo apparently wasn't even aware of the circumstances, as indicated by Ottava's comments, and was probably just pursuing somebody else's grudge against Moulton.

Jimbo doesn't care what the circumstances are; all he needs to know is that one of his Valued Friends has asked him to Do The GodKing Thing (after making the genuflection appropriate to the GodKing).

[Ottava]

When Jimbo does things like this on Wikipedia we can say he's out of touch, but at least he shows up every once in a blue moon. This was completely out of left field. If I were you, Ottava, I'd feel betrayed by admins who with one hand promoted mediation and with the other hand banned the guy you were trying to help.

I don't think there is a major problem just yet unless Jimbo wants Moulton's user page blocked and no review to be given after he completes the task. That is a possibility, but I am hoping it wont happen.

[anthony]

They should unblock Moulton, tell Jimbo to butt out of their community affairs, and then make their own decision about how to handle Moulton. Jimbo apparently wasn't even aware of the circumstances, as indicated by Ottava's comments, and was probably just pursuing somebody else's grudge against Moulton.

Jimbo doesn't care what the circumstances are; all he needs to know is that one of his Valued Friends has asked him to Do The GodKing Thing (after making the genuflection appropriate to the GodKing).

I'm pretty sure Jimbo was aware of exactly the circumstances in this case. Ottava just made the mistake of assuming good faith. Jimbo doesn't want "discussion to help build trust between [Moulton] and others of the community", he just wants to "stamp out the evildoers".

Jimbo doesn't even like it when people question the perfection of "his" precious Wikipedia off-wiki. There's no way he's going to let people do it on a sister project, if he can do anything to stop it.

If anything, Jimbo's action in blocking "Moulton" more suggests that he knew there was a plan for "discussion to help build trust between [Moulton] and others of the community", and he had to work quickly to stop such a thing from happening.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Ottava]

I'm pretty sure Jimbo was aware of exactly the circumstances in this case. Ottava just made the mistake of assuming good faith. Jimbo doesn't want "discussion to help build trust between [Moulton] and others of the community", he just wants to "stamp out the evildoers".

Jimbo doesn't even like it when people question the perfection of "his" precious Wikipedia off-wiki. There's no way he's going to let people do it on a sister project, if he can do anything to stop it.

If anything, Jimbo's action in blocking "Moulton" more suggests that he knew there was a plan for "discussion to help build trust between [Moulton] and others of the community", and he had to work quickly to stop such a thing from happening.

As per emails posting on Moulton's page, Jimbo contacted Moulton about Moulton's linking of blogs from his user pages that members of other projects found insulting.

This wasn't a questioning of "performance". Moulton's first responses, and their exchange, was harsher than needed. The community worked with him to try and tone down his response, but it was too little too late.

The recent fights with user Salmon of Doubt have probably only exacerbated the situation.

[Jon Awbrey]

I wrote about the "Moulton" aspects of this situation on the other thread. But the Jimbo aspects are quite another thing: he's not a Godking, but he's going to be one just this once? And although he's not a GodKing, Moulton is effectively "banished from the realm"?

Constitutional Monarch, Jimbo? Do they banish people?

This is rather a radical turn of events, in any case …

We do not know who the "three bureaucrats" were. We do not know who he was talking to. As many people have said, they saw this coming. Jimbo has the ability to move between projects based on his special status, so he was a likely person to turn to.

There are only five bureaucrats on Wikiversity. Of the "three bureaucrats" involved, SB Johnny and Cormaggio are almost certainly two, as they support the ban later in the discussion. The other might be either Mu301 or Erkan Yilmaz. Sebmol has been inactive since May 2008.

Except for SB Johnny, I don't recognize any of these names.

Been away, but last I looked, some Pseudo Nymed Ottava Rima was running for Custodian.

I see that the Topic I raised in the Colloquium has also been banished to a Subpage.

Any hope that Academic Freedom and Open Discussion might be more welcome there than the rest the Wikipedia Gulags can now be forgotten.

Hype Hype HooHah for Cabalversity !!!

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Ottava]

Been away, but last I looked, some Pseudo Nymed Ottava Rima was running for Custodian.

I see that the Topic I raised in the Colloquium has also been banished to a Subpage.

Any hope that Academic Freedom and Open Discussion might be more welcome there than the rest the Wikipedia Gulags can now be forgotten.

Hype Hype HooHah for Cabalversity !!!

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

Ran. Ran. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Originally, there was no process to picking the "Referees", so a bunch of us talked it over, and I decided to go through the Custodian process first while we design the other process. I've been doing quite a bit of gnome work and clean up while the process continues.

[Jon Awbrey]

Been away, but last I looked, some Pseudo Nymed Ottava Rima was running for Custodian.

I see that the Topic I raised in the Colloquium has also been banished to a Subpage.

Any hope that Academic Freedom and Open Discussion might be more welcome there than the rest the Wikipedia Gulags can now be forgotten.

Hype Hype HooHah for Cabalversity !!!

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

Ran. Ran. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Originally, there was no process to picking the "Referees", so a bunch of us talked it over, and I decided to go through the Custodian process first while we design the other process. I've been doing quite a bit of gnome work and clean up while the process continues.

Yes, I know, I have just been "cleaned up".

Amazing how calling it "ethnic cleansing" made it sound so gosh-darn "civil".

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

[that one guy]

Jimbo needs to realize that he can't always go around and block those who he doesn't like. Eventually he'll block the wrong person and then he'll have massive backlash.

[written by he who wrote it]

They should unblock Moulton, tell Jimbo to butt out of their community affairs, and then make their own decision about how to handle Moulton. Jimbo apparently wasn't even aware of the circumstances, as indicated by Ottava's comments, and was probably just pursuing somebody else's grudge against Moulton.

Probably? I think the only question is which user(s) bent his ear about this, and who (if anyone) put them up to it. Any guesses?

[Moulton]

Just as AN/Moulton divided the WP community, Jimbo's ill-advised intervention in Wikiversity has widened a chasm that was already present at Wikiversity before WAS 4.250 and I arrived there in early July.

It's the same chasm I've characterized before, and it permeates the culture at large (not just WMF-related projects).

In some ways it resembles the divide between Galileo and Pope Urban, although I'm not about to write the kind of dialogue that got Galileo into hot water with the Inquisition.

For those of you with 300 edits here, there is much more detail posted in the Moulton Thread in the 300 Club.

Jimbo showed up on the Wikiversity-en IRC channel today and our dialogue there may or may not be Galilean or Pinteresque. But it's worth a read if you want to see a 63-yr old schmeggegy scientist from MIT and the Boston Museum of Science go up against the God-King of WMF.

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo needs to realize that he can't always go around and block those who he doesn't like. Eventually he'll block the wrong person and then he'll have massive backlash.

He's after D. Tobias, now, a relatively safe target since not an admin or steward, and since he posts HERE.

Edits two and three are threats to "remove" Tobias from the project for messing with Moulton's bio. Says it's because Tobias is trying to "extend and prolong" the controversy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Jimbo's gunna show us how NOT to do that.

Ready, Jimbo: demonstrate.

[Shalom]

Jimbo needs to realize that he can't always go around and block those who he doesn't like. Eventually he'll block the wrong person and then he'll have massive backlash.

He's after D. Tobias, now, a relatively safe target since not an admin or steward, and since he posts HERE.

Edits two and three are threats to "remove" Tobias from the project for messing with Moulton's bio. Says it's because Tobias is trying to "extend and prolong" the controversy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Jimbo's gunna show us how NOT to do that.

Ready, Jimbo: demonstrate.

Milton, I think your mind takes you on wacky adventures sometimes, but if I should take your statement seriously, blocking Dan Tobias would be an exceedingly dumb thing for Jimbo to do (even by his own standards), and would generate exactly the kind of backlash that would undermine his power.

[everyking]

Just as AN/Moulton divided the WP community, Jimbo's ill-advised intervention in Wikiversity has widened a chasm that was already present at Wikiversity before WAS 4.250 and I arrived there in early July.

It's the same chasm I've characterized before, and it permeates the culture at large (not just WMF-related projects).

In some ways it resembles the divide between Galileo and Pope Urban, although I'm not about to write the kind of dialogue that got Galileo into hot water with the Inquisition.

For those of you with 300 edits here, there is much more detail posted in the Moulton Thread in the 300 Club.

Jimbo showed up on the Wikiversity-en IRC channel today and our dialogue there may or may not be Galilean or Pinteresque. But it's worth a read if you want to see a 63-yr old schmeggegy scientist from MIT and the Boston Museum of Science go up against the God-King of WMF.

I got a kick out of your exchange with Jimbo; reading it was well worth the time. I don't know enough to form an opinion on whether you should remain on Wikiversity, but I am certainly convinced that Jimbo is out of line in showing up on a project where he had never previously edited to unilaterally impose a ban. If the admins on Wikiversity are going to go along with that, they are only undermining their own community processes and discrediting themselves.

[JoseClutch]

Agreed - a block on Dan T. would cost Jimbo a fortune in community goodwill. Of course, Jimbo has that fortune, but I think he'd be loath to spend so much for no little.

Moultan, on the other hand, is at worst no cost, maybe net gain. Few editors, and no real "Editors of Influence ™" see the situation as a bad thing, even if they worry about project sovereignty.

[dtobias]

Edits two and three are threats to "remove" Tobias from the project for messing with Moulton's bio. Says it's because Tobias is trying to "extend and prolong" the controversy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Jimbo's gunna show us how NOT to do that.

Yes, it's rather weird that an edit I made nearly a month ago on a page which had no further edits over the succeeding weeks until Jimbo got there was "extending and prolonging" the controversy, while Jimbo jumping in and reverting it and threatening me with a ban much later wasn't... that's just as Bizarro-World-like as the assertion that I'm a "troll" for reverting a single-purpose drama-only account, Centaur of Attention, which seems to deserve that label much more than myself.

----------------
Now playing: Kelly Clarkson - Up to the Mountain (Featuring Jeff Beck)

Agreed - a block on Dan T. would cost Jimbo a fortune in community goodwill. Of course, Jimbo has that fortune, but I think he'd be loath to spend so much for no little.

Do I actually have that much community goodwill on my side? I'd be impressed if that were true, but it's not always clear.

----------------
Now playing: Hilary Duff - Who's That Girl?
via FoxyTunes

[Shalom]

Wait, I didn't actually read Jimbo's second and third edits to WV when I made my last comment. I didn't believe he actually said that until I read it with my own eyes.

Dan's WV contribs all have to do with the Wikipedia Ethics project. However, there's a huge difference in perception between shutting down the project versus banning an editor for his involvement with the project. Furthermore, Dan's edit to Moulton's userpage can hardly be considered trolling even by the most Draconian standard unless Moulton himself doesn't want that blog linked from his userpage.

I almost want Jimbo to make good on his threat to see what the reaction will be.

[dtobias]

I almost want Jimbo to make good on his threat to see what the reaction will be.

I still kind of like maintaining my perfect no-block record, though...

----------------
Now playing: Carly Simon - You're So Vain
via FoxyTunes

[Shalom]

I almost want Jimbo to make good on his threat to see what the reaction will be.

I still kind of like maintaining my perfect no-block record, though...

----------------
Now playing: Carly Simon - You're So Vain
via FoxyTunes

I can sympathize with that.

[Jon Awbrey]

I almost want Jimbo to make good on his threat to see what the reaction will be.

I still kind of like maintaining my perfect no-block record, though …

I always wondered if DT would get some balls someday.

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like today is not that day.

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

[Shalom]

I almost want Jimbo to make good on his threat to see what the reaction will be.

I still kind of like maintaining my perfect no-block record, though …

I always wondered if DT would get some balls someday.

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like today is not that day.

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

Jon, it's not that hard to get blocked if you want to get blocked. It is hard to get blocked if you don't want to get blocked but are disagreeing with people who have the ability to block you. That's not "balls," it's just how the system works.

[Emperor]

Wikipedians crave this stuff. Attention from daddy is always nice. Right or wrong, at least he's playing with you.

[Jon Awbrey]

I almost want Jimbo to make good on his threat to see what the reaction will be.

I still kind of like maintaining my perfect no-block record, though …

I always wondered if DT would get some balls someday.

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like today is not that day.

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

Jon, it's not that hard to get blocked if you want to get blocked. It is hard to get blocked if you don't want to get blocked but are disagreeing with people who have the ability to block you. That's not "balls," it's just how the system works.

The question is whether one's own Integrity has a higher priority than Kamaraderie with the Klan.

Of course, it's always possible that DT has a different definition of Integrity — after all, Wikipediots have Ediotic conceptions of just about every word in the Dicktionary.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Ottava]

Yes, I know, I have just been "cleaned up".

Amazing how calling it "ethnic cleansing" made it sound so gosh-darn "civil".

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

I thought my comment on your talk page was to the opposite?

[Jon Awbrey]

Yes, I know, I have just been "cleaned up".

Amazing how calling it "ethnic cleansing" made it sound so gosh-darn "civil".

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

I thought my comment on your talk page was to the opposite?

You are either an idiot or you think I am.

Most likely both, but I don't really care.

Now bugger off.

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

[Ottava]

I got a kick out of your exchange with Jimbo; reading it was well worth the time. I don't know enough to form an opinion on whether you should remain on Wikiversity, but I am certainly convinced that Jimbo is out of line in showing up on a project where he had never previously edited to unilaterally impose a ban. If the admins on Wikiversity are going to go along with that, they are only undermining their own community processes and discrediting themselves.

We can be fair and point out that Cary Bass has participated in a few places at Wikiversity, so the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole has had involvement with the project.

Cary Bass also cleared the way for Jimbo to make an account (by removing the false Jimbo name). So, I think that Cary could be considered a proxy that connects Jimbo to the project for many months.

Yes, I know, I have just been "cleaned up".

Amazing how calling it "ethnic cleansing" made it sound so gosh-darn "civil".

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

I thought my comment on your talk page was to the opposite?

You are either an idiot or you think I am.

Most likely both, but I don't really care.

Now bugger off.

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

Okay, last time I try to help.

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo needs to realize that he can't always go around and block those who he doesn't like. Eventually he'll block the wrong person and then he'll have massive backlash.

He's after D. Tobias, now, a relatively safe target since not an admin or steward, and since he posts HERE.

Edits two and three are threats to "remove" Tobias from the project for messing with Moulton's bio. Says it's because Tobias is trying to "extend and prolong" the controversy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Jimbo's gunna show us how NOT to do that.

Ready, Jimbo: demonstrate.

Milton, I think your mind takes you on wacky adventures sometimes, but if I should take your statement seriously, blocking Dan Tobias would be an exceedingly dumb thing for Jimbo to do (even by his own standards), and would generate exactly the kind of backlash that would undermine his power.

Meh, the adventures my mind takes me on, you have no idea. But this one isn't a fake one.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Con...ons/Jimbo_Wales

[Jon Awbrey]

Yes, I know, I have just been "cleaned up".

Amazing how calling it "ethnic cleansing" made it sound so gosh-darn "civil".

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

I thought my comment on your talk page was to the opposite?

You are either an idiot or you think I am.

Most likely both, but I don't really care.

Now bugger off.

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

Okay, last time I try to help.

Okay, both it is.

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

[Shalom]

Milton, if you read my last post, I basically admitted as much.

[Milton Roe]

Milton, if you read my last post, I basically admitted as much.

Sorry, I hadn't yet. Yep.

[Jon Awbrey]

DT, WAS, and other Smoothers are the John McCains of Wikiputia. They affect to be independent thinkers and even tout themselves as "mavericks", but if you track their actual voting records and especially the way they disapparate when any forthright act might put a smudge on their Virginities, you will see that they always toe the Wiki-Party Line in the end.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[JoseClutch]

Agreed - a block on Dan T. would cost Jimbo a fortune in community goodwill. Of course, Jimbo has that fortune, but I think he'd be loath to spend so much for no little.

Do I actually have that much community goodwill on my side? I'd be impressed if that were true, but it's not always clear.

Gauging community goodwill is always hard. Depends on circumstances. In this case, the "Dan was troublemaking" is a pretty easy case to make, and "Dan is a long time agitator" also goes. But it's countered by your usual good faith and respectfulness, which probably go a long way. I am surprised by these things from time to time, too, though historically I have thought I got a good impression of goings-on by watching and not getting too involved. A test of community goodwill is not advised, however. Those often end badly.

[dtobias]

Like it's actually a more useful approach to goad, taunt, and troll people in power on Wikipedia just for the fun of it, provoking them into banning you, and then continue to tweak their noses using sockpuppets to ensure that you stay banned, all the while insisting that you're always right and everybody who disagrees with you is always wrong, and that you are eminently qualified to make pompous pronouncements about all the philosophical flaws of Wikipedia and how the only way to fix them would be to scrap all their community-created policies and replace them with ones you made up? That approach has been really successful for the various people around here who have tried it.

----------------
Now playing: Cyndi Lauper - She Bop
via FoxyTunes

[Moulton]

Here is the main prepared message which Jimbo Wales brought to the Wikiversity IRC channel earlier today:

(02:37:04 PM EDT) jwales: The main message I wanted to bring here today is that I do not wish to have any special role in the Wikiversity community going forward. I am happy to assist with advice based on my experience, which you are free to ignore, but I am also happy to give moral and political (with the Foundation) support for an effort to clarify policy in Wikiversity to make it easier to get rid of trolls.

I interpret that to mean he is standing down from his recent ill-advised contributions to the project:

The trolls he is referring to are Centaur of attention, Salmon of Doubt, and KillerChihuahua.

[Floydsvoid]

I can't help but observe, Mr. Moulton, that as someone that studies large dynamic online communities, you do a piss-poor job of interacting with them. Or is that planned (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Like it's actually a more useful approach to goad, taunt, and troll people in power on Wikipedia just for the fun of it, provoking them into banning you, and then continue to tweak their noses using sockpuppets to ensure that you stay banned, all the while insisting that you're always right and everybody who disagrees with you is always wrong, and that you are eminently qualified to make pompous pronouncements about all the philosophical flaws of Wikipedia and how the only way to fix them would be to scrap all their community-created policies and replace them with ones you made up? That approach has been really successful for the various people around here who have tried it.

----------------

No, we'll just make sure past mistakes are not forgotten. Jimbo can threaten to simply "remove you" but he has to do it in public, and nobody ever forgets that.

So here's Jimbo and SlimVirgin working over Gary Weiss's TALK page, apparently because WORDBOMB Bagley had, a noob then, possibly because he had made the comment that Gary posted on WP as "Mantanmoreland." Before he had a change to fix it, he was banned. SlimVirgin always claimed she couldn't remember if she'd warned him first, or not. But those stuff has been oversighted so we'll never know.

But then Jimbo steps in, and does the first wrong thing, Oct 30, 2006, courtesy blanking the deletion dicussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...on%2FGary+Weiss

Somebody wants to know why the discussion was deleted by Jimbo himself out of "courtesy"? Who gets THAT kind of personal courtesy from Jimbo? Mantanmoreland himself has the answer:

I find it hard to "Please see prior discussion(s)" if the AFD was deleted. Why was it deleted? Jimbo didn't really leave anything... well, helpful in his deletion summary. Voretus 09:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was commenced in bad faith by a user acting on behalf of banned User:WordBomb, who was subsequently determined to be an employee of a company criticized by Weiss. The AfD was in effect a libelous attack page. That may or may not be the reason it was deleted.--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss/Archive_1"

In TALK archive 2 which happens soon after, you see a real war. There's Cla68 and Dan Tobias, and socks Mantanmoreland, Samiharris, and Mantan supporters Durova, et al.

A comment by Dan:

Being able to dismiss entire categories of opinions through guilt-by-association because a banned user has espoused similar viewpoints may be useful if you favor a different viewpoint, but it is in no way compatible with NPOV. *Dan T.* 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec ... a moment ago you were lumping together a whole group of people because they form a "clique" - isn't that guilt by association? Now you claim that you are a victim of the same tactic? Okay, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you think it is wrong to be lumped together and dismissed, then just say so - rather than do the same to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas how little you know in retrospect Slrubenstein, for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris' demise is still far in the future. And Tobias is correct.

But now, Jimbo a day later (last talk page) finally gets behind Durova, G-dett, and the whole crew supporting Mantanmoreland on Oct 20, 2007 (this is the time of the Gerard rangeblock on Broadweave in Utah) but not without getting some flack. It draws Cla68 a 24 hour block.

Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same? Cla68 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, you are subject to a 24 hour block for violation of WP:POINT. The reason is that this page exists for encyclopedic collaboration, not drama. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think the block may have been a tad excessive, I did say zero tolerance and shoot on sight. Cla68, I fear that you have been manipulated by lying stalkers and trolls, and I am happy to talk to you about it privately, but I am sick of the drama around this issue on this page, and it absolutely has to come to an end. I recommend that Durova (no one else! no wheel wars please!) reduce the block as a gesture of good faith, but if Durova wants you to sit out the 24 hours, I will respect that as well. I support all reasonable efforts to clarify that the support for trolls and stalkers needs to stop.--Jimbo Wales 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and remedy and I'll respond more on your talk page. Cla68 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Jimbo. A conversation ends when all the evidence is presented and people are convinced. It does not end because a godhead says it does. When you yell "stalker" while obscuring the discussion you appear no different from Bush yelling "terrorist" while asserting executive privilege (eep, shades of Godwin's law!). I am just a casual contributor to wikipedia but I have noticed increasingly that every time I make a slightly controvertial edit, I am subjected to threats. You step on someone's pet project and suddenly they're telling you how many administrators they personally know and how quickly you'll be banned if you don't drop the issue immediately. That is not a conversation about the facts, it is an Appeal to authority. It didn't used to be this way. When the recent drama unfolded with Durova, I speculated that the formation of a "cabal" was responsible for this increase. Now that I have seen the words "shoot on sight," all doubt is removed. Those of us coming out of the woodwork because we are offended at this threatening tendency are not sockpuppets. By responding in a reactionary manner, you are causing even uninvolved parties to exhibit the behavior that you attribute to sock puppets. Bagley's probably a nutcase, but "shoot on sight" just proves his point. You simply cannot build an open encyclopedia based on the appeal to authority. It is vital that we retain the ability to accept content from anonymous users based on the quality of the content rather than the perceived separation between the contributor and the administration, and that is at risk when this is the example that you set for the other administrators. Galexander (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the better replies to Jimbo I've seen. One of the first mentions of a cabal. It comes 6 weeks after Jimbo's "shoot on sight" comment about OVERSTOCK people. Water under the bridge between, as Durova resigns/is desysoped soon after (Nov 26, 07, about a month after her highhanded Cla68 block, but of course this is not her main problem, as highhandedness with !!, Giano, and others bring her down. Bang, bang, Durova.). But it's the also the last statement Gelexander will ever make on WP. That user is not blocked, but that user has had enough. After posting a mission statement the same day, he or she goes away. Not a sock from the history, just a disgusted editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Galexander

So that's now up to the end of 2007. We all know what happens in 2008: it all comes unglued. Mantanmoreland and his calvalcade of socks are exposed, most being those Jimbo has befriended. The economy tanks. No more hairy-chested Durova after Nov. 2007, as mentioned. Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae and Bear Sterns go down (and today, Lehman Bros!) and the feds are suddenly concerned with naked shorting. Looks like somebody was right. Looks like Jimbo missed the pissed-off editors socking merely to communicate a problem with real world POV-pushing, and was bamboozed by the deepsocks, spinning the real content. He allowed abusive editors. He did courtesy deletions. He didn't listen to Cla68. And he certainly didn't listen to Dan T., who was in there on this case, on the other side, right where he should have been.

Any of this beginning to sound familiar? I mentioned SlimVirgin just once, right at the beginnning. It's not entirely her, this time. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But we seem to have superficial, highhanded, powerdrunk Jimbo Wales, who NEVER, ever, seems to get it right. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[dtobias]

I mentioned SlimVirgin just once, right at the beginnning.

And I always have something appropriate in my iTunes library to accompany whatever is being discussed... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Thanks for the comments about me, by the way.

----------------
Now playing: Madonna - Like A Virgin
via FoxyTunes

[Shalom]

I mentioned SlimVirgin just once, right at the beginnning.

And I always have something appropriate in my iTunes library to accompany whatever is being discussed... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Thanks for the comments about me, by the way.

----------------
Now playing: Madonna - Like A Virgin
via FoxyTunes

Dan, that was funny. You have a lot of iTunes.

[Moulton]

If you meet the Buddha in the road, block him.

I can't help but observe, Mr. Moulton, that as someone that studies large dynamic online communities, you do a piss-poor job of interacting with them. Or is that planned (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

In a sense it's "planned" but not by me. If I were living in a pre-scientific era, I might speak of "God's Plan" but such language is considered quaint by modern standards of public discourse.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson speaks of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Today we would speak of the "Natural Course of Events" (per Natural Law) rather than speak of "God's Plan". But it means the same thing.

The drama that is in play is an oft-recurring (and thus predictable) drama that arises when the dominant player is operating at Kohlberg Level 4 and the non-dominant player is seeking to operate at Kohlberg Level 5. This drama has many famous examples in history, some more familiar than others. The version that seems most apt in this go-round is the version which Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole portrayed in the encounter between Thomas à Becket and King Henry. Ever since the dawn of civilization, this same drama plays out many times in every generation. Eventually you will find yourself in this same dramatic passage, either in the role of King Henry (the character in power who operates at Kohlberg Level 4) or in the role of Beckett (the character out of power who operates at Kohlberg Level 5). It is all but inevitable that the character at Kohlberg Level 4 will move to annihilate the character at Kohlberg Level 5. How could it possibly be any other way?

If none of the above makes sense to you, then you are in the camp of Jimbo Wales, firmly entrenched at Kohlberg Level 4 of the game, and utterly oblivious of the existence or desirability of Kohlberg Level 5.

[dogbiscuit]

I'm afraid your performance makes me think of someone complaining about being bitten by a dog who wants to get that dog put down.

A man going about his business gets attacked by a dog without provocation, causing nasty wounds. The man calls the police and shows them the dog and his wounds. The dog is unpredictable and is known to bite without provocation, but he insists on demonstrating that the dog is dangerous by poking it with a hefty stick. It bites him. His friends agree that dogs shouldn't bite, but can't help noticing the hefty stick that he wields. The owner gets his own big stick out and proceeds to wield it against the man and the police stand back as they are not sure who has committed the worst crime. Assault! the man cries, arrest them! while poking the dog and the man with the hefty stick. Blows are exchanged. The dog fights back. The police decide they can do nothing as you are on private land and sidle away, and the land owner gets his security guards and throws the man out while singing protest songs about injustice, kicking and screaming on the way.

The interested observers watching this know that the man got badly bitten, and are sympathetic for the bandaged wreck in front of them, but are bemused at the way the man went about trying to sort out the problem. They sidle away when they see the hefty stick being wafted in their general direction in case they are about to get educated too.

You are allowed to stop banging your head against a brick wall. I understand the feeling of well being is quite to be recommended.

[Angela Kennedy]

I'm afraid your performance makes me think of someone complaining about being bitten by a dog who wants to get that dog put down.

A man going about his business gets attacked by a dog without provocation, causing nasty wounds. The man calls the police and shows them the dog and his wounds. The dog is unpredictable and is known to bite without provocation, but he insists on demonstrating that the dog is dangerous by poking it with a hefty stick. It bites him. His friends agree that dogs shouldn't bite, but can't help noticing the hefty stick that he wields. The owner gets his own big stick out and proceeds to wield it against the man and the police stand back as they are not sure who has committed the worst crime. Assault! the man cries, arrest them! while poking the dog and the man with the hefty stick. Blows are exchanged. The dog fights back. The police decide they can do nothing as you are on private land and sidle away, and the land owner gets his security guards and throws the man out while singing protest songs about injustice, kicking and screaming on the way.

The interested observers watching this know that the man got badly bitten, and are sympathetic for the bandaged wreck in front of them, but are bemused at the way the man went about trying to sort out the problem. They sidle away when they see the hefty stick being wafted in their general direction in case they are about to get educated too.

You are allowed to stop banging your head against a brick wall. I understand the feeling of well being is quite to be recommended.

Added to that is the problem that one can't really be sure the dog wasn't provoked in the first place.

[Shalom]

I'm afraid your performance makes me think of someone complaining about being bitten by a dog who wants to get that dog put down.

A man going about his business gets attacked by a dog without provocation, causing nasty wounds. The man calls the police and shows them the dog and his wounds. The dog is unpredictable and is known to bite without provocation, but he insists on demonstrating that the dog is dangerous by poking it with a hefty stick. It bites him. His friends agree that dogs shouldn't bite, but can't help noticing the hefty stick that he wields. The owner gets his own big stick out and proceeds to wield it against the man and the police stand back as they are not sure who has committed the worst crime. Assault! the man cries, arrest them! while poking the dog and the man with the hefty stick. Blows are exchanged. The dog fights back. The police decide they can do nothing as you are on private land and sidle away, and the land owner gets his security guards and throws the man out while singing protest songs about injustice, kicking and screaming on the way.

The interested observers watching this know that the man got badly bitten, and are sympathetic for the bandaged wreck in front of them, but are bemused at the way the man went about trying to sort out the problem. They sidle away when they see the hefty stick being wafted in their general direction in case they are about to get educated too.

You are allowed to stop banging your head against a brick wall. I understand the feeling of well being is quite to be recommended.

What if the man fed the dog a biscuit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

If you throw snowballs at a dog, he'll probably think you're playing at first. When you start beaming him with iceballs, he'll not want to play any more. When you start hitting him with a snow shovel, he's probably going to bite you.

Not many will come up to the plate to defend someone who abuses animals.

[dogbiscuit]

If you throw snowballs at a dog, he'll probably think you're playing at first. When you start beaming him with iceballs, he'll not want to play any more. When you start hitting him with a snow shovel, he's probably going to bite you.

Not many will come up to the plate to defend someone who abuses animals.

Welcome to the Review SB_Johnny.

No dragons here, I believe.

FWIW, I was impressed at your forbearance at WV.

[Moulton]

I am not Dumbledore, either.

I'm afraid your performance makes me think of someone complaining about being bitten by a dog who wants to get that dog put down.

[snip]Insightful Jesuistic Allegory[/snip]

I'm afraid you've misjudged me.

Please do not compare me to Elphaba Thropp. Durova is playing that green-skinned character.

I'm the red-head in this drama.

I am playing the roles of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and Professor Marvel in this reprise of Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination.

Everyone else is playing the role of the Munchkins.

Well, almost everyone.

Kato, Greg, and Awbrey are playing the roles of Tom Servo, Mike, and Crow down in the front seats, whilst Somey and Selina are playing the roles of Statler and Waldorf up in the balcony.

The interested observers watching this know that the man got badly bitten, and are sympathetic for the bandaged wreck in front of them, but are bemused at the way the man went about trying to sort out the problem. They sidle away when they see the hefty stick being wafted in their general direction in case they are about to get educated too.

You are allowed to stop banging your head against a brick wall. I understand the feeling of well being is quite to be recommended.

There is no doubt that my method failed. It was guaranteed to fail. After all, did you expect me to play the role any better than Socrates, Jesus, Beckett, Galileo, Gandhi, King, Mandela, Alice, or Dorothy?

At least Alice and Dorothy realized their Kafkaesque nightmare was only a dream.

Some people here seem to think that Wikipedia is real life.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[GlassBeadGame]

At one time I thought you (Moulton) were an unfortunate fellow who confused a MMORPG for an encyclopedia or a university. I no longer think you are confused at all. You are aware of WV/WP's true nature. You are intent upon implementing your own hack to the game in which you can play Gautama, Jesus or Socrates. You set out acquiring Kohlberg Points until you can arrange your very own Passion Play. This is clever, educational and entertaining. Remember though... playing a MMORPG about enlightenment no more results in attaining enlightenment than playing one about an encyclopedia or university will result in scholarly achievements.

[dtobias]

I am playing the roles of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and Professor Marvel in this reprise of Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination.

In other words, you're lacking in brains, heart, courage, and knowledge of how to get home again, and you're a fraud who's trying to bamboozle people.

This post has been edited by dtobias:

[dogbiscuit]

I am playing the roles of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and Professor Marvel in this reprise of Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination.

In other words, you're lacking in brains, heart, courage, and knowledge of how to get home again, and you're a fraud who's trying to bamboozle people.

Yep, including WR.

[Milton Roe]

Kato, Greg, and Awbrey are playing the roles of Tom Servo, Mike, and Crow down in the front seats,

I get to be Tom Servo, Crow or Mike. I had my hand raised first. Meeeeeeee!!!

[Moulton]

I am playing the roles of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and Professor Marvel in this reprise of Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination.

In other words, you're lacking in brains, heart, courage, and knowledge of how to get home again, and you're a fraud who's trying to bamboozle people.

Yep, including WR.

Surely you did not mistake me for an authentic science educator, using authentic didactic methods did you?

[Sarcasticidealist]

We can be fair and point out that Cary Bass has participated in a few places at Wikiversity, so the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole has had involvement with the project.

Cary Bass also cleared the way for Jimbo to make an account (by removing the false Jimbo name). So, I think that Cary could be considered a proxy that connects Jimbo to the project for many months.

Well, of course the WMF has had "involvement" with the project. They own the servers, pay the staff support, and hold the relevant copyrights (not of content, but of design, etc.). And yes, Cary Bass is an employee of the WMF, and his job description includes acting on the WMF's behalf, so no problems there.

But what does this have to do with Jimbo? He's not an employee or officer of the WMF, and I've seen no indication that he's authorized to wield the power of the WMF on Wikimedia projects. I'm not seeing the link you see between Cary and Jimbo.

[Ottava]

At one time I thought you (Moulton) were an unfortunate fellow who confused a MMORPG for an encyclopedia or a university. I no longer think you are confused at all. You are aware of WV/WP's true nature. You are intent upon implementing your own hack to the game in which you can play Gautama, Jesus or Socrates. You set out acquiring Kohlberg Points until you can arrange your very own Passion Play. This is clever, educational and entertaining. Remember though... playing a MMORPG about enlightenment no more results in attaining enlightenment than playing one about an encyclopedia or university will result in scholarly achievements.

M.O.U.L.T.O.N.

Massive Online Universe Loosing On Networks?

Well, of course the WMF has had "involvement" with the project. They own the servers, pay the staff support, and hold the relevant copyrights (not of content, but of design, etc.). And yes, Cary Bass is an employee of the WMF, and his job description includes acting on the WMF's behalf, so no problems there.

But what does this have to do with Jimbo? He's not an employee or officer of the WMF, and I've seen no indication that he's authorized to wield the power of the WMF on Wikimedia projects. I'm not seeing the link you see between Cary and Jimbo.

Could someone with more experience (Alison, Lar, etc) explain to him the relationship? Or am I just way off base here?

[dogbiscuit]

Surely you did not mistake me for an authentic science educator, using authentic didactic methods did you?

No, but that little escapade undermines anyone who wants to intercede on Picard's behalf as they are now just part of some silly game that Moulton has been playing and can safely be ignored, and I thought you were sincerely concerned about that.

[mikeu]

We do not know who the "three bureaucrats" were. We do not know who he was talking to. As many people have said, they saw this coming. Jimbo has the ability to move between projects based on his special status, so he was a likely person to turn to.

There are only five bureaucrats on Wikiversity. Of the "three bureaucrats" involved, SB Johnny and Cormaggio are almost certainly two, as they support the ban later in the discussion. The other might be either Mu301 or Erkan Yilmaz. Sebmol has been inactive since May 2008.

Except for SB Johnny, I don't recognize any of these names.

Mu301 also showed support for the ban and then added a comment about how it feels.

-mikeu

[Sarcasticidealist]

Could someone with more experience (Alison, Lar, etc) explain to him the relationship? Or am I just way off base here?

Well, before I can tell you how off-base you are, you have to identify which part of what I said you disagree with.

[Milton Roe]

Well, of course the WMF has had "involvement" with the project. They own the servers, pay the staff support, and hold the relevant copyrights (not of content, but of design, etc.). And yes, Cary Bass is an employee of the WMF, and his job description includes acting on the WMF's behalf, so no problems there.

But what does this have to do with Jimbo? He's not an employee or officer of the WMF, and I've seen no indication that he's authorized to wield the power of the WMF on Wikimedia projects. I'm not seeing the link you see between Cary and Jimbo.

Could someone with more experience (Alison, Lar, etc) explain to him the relationship? Or am I just way off base here?

No. Jimbo has no legal authority to do the things he's doing, except as the WMF board allow him to, without removing him. And those people are in the position of Roman Senators when confronted with a self-proclaimed dictator-for-like like Julius or Augustus Caesar. Or even a Nero. The question is, who is going to stab him first, and if one of us does, it had better be all of us. Because aborted plots get the first guys thrown out for treason, and then they're out. So everybody keeps his own council, and one day the praetorian guards themselves will have had enough, and Jimbo will be out on his ear.

And everybody in the outside world will be sooooo surprized then, just like when major corporations dump their CEOs. You know-- the ones that everyone on the board of directors had kissed up to, right up until the day before.

And Jimbo's not EVEN the CEO--- just an old director with a history. He the head of the army in his private little banana republic. Constitutionally, he's nowhere. But he can't be ignored, unless the government is prepared to banish him entirely. Think Pinochet (Grape Republic? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)). Anybody who stands up against him without everybody else doing so, is going to disappear.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Sarcasticidealist]

No. Jimbo has no legal authority to do the things he's doing, except as the WMF board allow him to, without removing him.

Unless he wields power in the name of the community, in which case it's the community that's being negligent in tolerating his misuse of the sysop tools.

Of course, nobody's willing to answer the question of whether his power nominally comes from the Foundation or the community (and yes, the community's power ultimately comes from the foundation too, but the distinction is obviously still meaningful).

[Jon Awbrey]

Old King Jimbo knows to keep a few e-musing Court Fools around, like DT and WAS, just to name few, by way of maintaining the pretense of allowing Diversity Of Opinion (DOO), jest so long as they don't DOO anything that would make a DIFF.

It's called Rebellion In Service Of Regime (RISOR).

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

[Shalom]

No. Jimbo has no legal authority to do the things he's doing, except as the WMF board allow him to, without removing him.

Unless he wields power in the name of the community, in which case it's the community that's being negligent in tolerating his misuse of the sysop tools.

Of course, nobody's willing to answer the question of whether his power nominally comes from the Foundation or the community (and yes, the community's power ultimately comes from the foundation too, but the distinction is obviously still meaningful).

I tried to answer that when you asked me, but I came to a conflicted conclusion. To be more precise, nobody who has the ability to dictate the answer is telling us the answer.

[Adam Smithee]

Which one is Jimbo again?

This post has been edited by Adam Smithee:

[Shalom]

Which one is Jimbo again?

I'm getting a 404 error.

[Adam Smithee]

Which one is Jimbo again?

I'm getting a 404 error.

Yeah... helps when I post the right link doesn't it?

[The Joy]

Which one is Jimbo again?

The far left one completely in black. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Lar]

Surely you did not mistake me for an authentic science educator, using authentic didactic methods did you?

I might have at first, but there is no danger of that now.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Which one is Jimbo again?

Bossk.

The far left one completely in black. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

You're giving Jimbo too much credit. Vader was very competent at carrying out his work.

[Jon Awbrey]

Vader was very competent at carrying out his work.

Knot 2 Menschen Er War Mein Vater …

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

[Sxeptomaniac]

I'm afraid your performance makes me think of someone complaining about being bitten by a dog who wants to get that dog put down.

A man going about his business gets attacked by a dog without provocation, causing nasty wounds. The man calls the police and shows them the dog and his wounds. The dog is unpredictable and is known to bite without provocation, but he insists on demonstrating that the dog is dangerous by poking it with a hefty stick. It bites him. His friends agree that dogs shouldn't bite, but can't help noticing the hefty stick that he wields. The owner gets his own big stick out and proceeds to wield it against the man and the police stand back as they are not sure who has committed the worst crime. Assault! the man cries, arrest them! while poking the dog and the man with the hefty stick. Blows are exchanged. The dog fights back. The police decide they can do nothing as you are on private land and sidle away, and the land owner gets his security guards and throws the man out while singing protest songs about injustice, kicking and screaming on the way.

The interested observers watching this know that the man got badly bitten, and are sympathetic for the bandaged wreck in front of them, but are bemused at the way the man went about trying to sort out the problem. They sidle away when they see the hefty stick being wafted in their general direction in case they are about to get educated too.

You are allowed to stop banging your head against a brick wall. I understand the feeling of well being is quite to be recommended.

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB_Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

[Jon Awbrey]

It's the Very Idea of permitting pseudonyms in a community with pretensions to academic values that is the main absurdity at Cabalversity. Moulton probably just got so swept up in the delusion that he was talking to adults that he forgot he was still talking to Kabal Kartoon Karacters.

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

[Rootology]

Cute, with the IP address from MIT:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Con...ns/18.85.28.223

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...57&oldid=327983

(Undo vandalism 327983 by Jimbo Wales (Talk))

[Ottava]

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB_Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

There was a slow process going on of trying to have Moulton work with others, including KC.

[Jon Awbrey]

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

There was a slow process going on of trying to have Moulton work with others, including KC.

Speaking of Kabal Kartoon Karacters, why don't you two go back to your Sandbox and make mud-pies — we observe COPPA rules here.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Milton Roe]

Cute, with the IP address from MIT:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Con...ns/18.85.28.223

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...57&oldid=327983

(Undo vandalism 327983 by Jimbo Wales (Talk))

But on the action page it's claimed outright by Moulton.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Con...ns/18.85.28.223

[Rootology]

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't him. That's fairly obvious. He's also back in IRC after getting banned from it, on a new IP and handle now.

This is just going to end with MIT getting blocked because of him.

[Ottava]

But on the action page it's claimed outright by Moulton.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Con...ns/18.85.28.223

I believe this matter has been taken care of.

[Sxeptomaniac]

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB_Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

There was a slow process going on of trying to have Moulton work with others, including KC.

True. I've attempted to work with him on multiple issues going back more than a year now, but Jimbo claims that an unknown number of admins requested that he be the one to make the block. So, unless Jimbo was misrepresenting things, it sounds to me like those admins need to grow a pair and, at the minimum, speak up. From what I've seen, those admins didn't even have the guts to stand up and say they were the ones that asked Jimbo to do their jobs for them.

[Ottava]

True. I've attempted to work with him on multiple issues going back more than a year now, but Jimbo claims that an unknown number of admins requested that he be the one to make the block. So, unless Jimbo was misrepresenting things, it sounds to me like those admins need to grow a pair and, at the minimum, speak up. From what I've seen, those admins didn't even have the guts to stand up and say they were the ones that asked Jimbo to do their jobs for them.

I know a significant amount of admins on project and off project were discussed. I also know that there were those within the Wikimedia Foundation that have experience with Wikiversity and witnessed some of the disputes first hand.

[Floydsvoid]

The drama that is in play is an oft-recurring (and thus predictable) drama that arises when the dominant player is operating at Kohlberg Level 4 and the non-dominant player is seeking to operate at Kohlberg Level 5. This drama has many famous examples in history, some more familiar than others. The version that seems most apt in this go-round is the version which Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole portrayed in the encounter between Thomas à Becket and King Henry.

Thanks for the movie tip. It's at the top of my queue now.

Also thanks for the pointer to the Kohlberg levels. I'm not a big fan of psychology but this seems to have some useful truths to it.

Surely you did not mistake me for an authentic science educator, using authentic didactic methods did you?

Is that another roll of the dice? Surely you are running out of squares you can move to?

Shakespeare had plays inside of plays.

[Sxeptomaniac]

True. I've attempted to work with him on multiple issues going back more than a year now, but Jimbo claims that an unknown number of admins requested that he be the one to make the block. So, unless Jimbo was misrepresenting things, it sounds to me like those admins need to grow a pair and, at the minimum, speak up. From what I've seen, those admins didn't even have the guts to stand up and say they were the ones that asked Jimbo to do their jobs for them.

I know a significant amount of admins on project and off project were discussed. I also know that there were those within the Wikimedia Foundation that have experience with Wikiversity and witnessed some of the disputes first hand.

I know off-project admins complained, but, from the perspective of the average editor at WV, it sure looks like Jimbo came out of nowhere. Centaur of Attention had only recently gotten around to making a formal request for action on the page, from what I've seen.

If admins can't handle the problems on their own project, that's bad, but it looks even worse when, to all appearances, they never even tried to deal with it themselves. I'm wondering if it's related the the problems with JWSchmidt, but, if so, it's still pretty bad that they short-changed the attempts to address problems within the project.

[everyking]

True. I've attempted to work with him on multiple issues going back more than a year now, but Jimbo claims that an unknown number of admins requested that he be the one to make the block. So, unless Jimbo was misrepresenting things, it sounds to me like those admins need to grow a pair and, at the minimum, speak up. From what I've seen, those admins didn't even have the guts to stand up and say they were the ones that asked Jimbo to do their jobs for them.

I know a significant amount of admins on project and off project were discussed. I also know that there were those within the Wikimedia Foundation that have experience with Wikiversity and witnessed some of the disputes first hand.

I know off-project admins complained, but, from the perspective of the average editor at WV, it sure looks like Jimbo came out of nowhere. Centaur of Attention had only recently gotten around to making a formal request for action on the page, from what I've seen.

If admins can't handle the problems on their own project, that's bad, but it looks even worse when, to all appearances, they never even tried to deal with it themselves. I'm wondering if it's related the the problems with JWSchmidt, but, if so, it's still pretty bad that they short-changed the attempts to address problems within the project.

Have any conditions been outlined under which Moulton would be allowed to edit again?

[Jon Awbrey]

Have any conditions been outlined under which Moulton would be allowed to edit again?

The usual Wiki-Prefrontal Robotomy, I'm guessing.

You know, the one all you "guys" had.

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

[Moulton]

The drama that is in play is an oft-recurring (and thus predictable) drama that arises when the dominant player is operating at Kohlberg Level 4 and the non-dominant player is seeking to operate at Kohlberg Level 5. This drama has many famous examples in history, some more familiar than others. The version that seems most apt in this go-round is the version which Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole portrayed in the encounter between Thomas à Becket and King Henry.

Thanks for the movie tip. It's at the top of my queue now.

Also thanks for the pointer to the Kohlberg levels. I'm not a big fan of psychology but this seems to have some useful truths to it.

Here is my presentation of the Integrated Kohlberg-Gilligan Model.

Surely you did not mistake me for an authentic science educator, using authentic didactic methods did you?

Is that another roll of the dice? Surely you are running out of squares you can move to?

Shakespeare had plays inside of plays.

What usually happens in these encounters is that the operator at Kohlberg tries to make the set of legal moves the Null Set. At that point I am obliged to do something creative and unexpected that the rules don't address. Recently I've been writing atrocious song parodies on my blog, lampooning the machinations of the Red Queen.

The thing about creativity is that the space of imaginable moves is of a higher order infinity than Aleph-Null. Rulesets can only outlaw a countable number of maneuvers.

I'm a better scientist than artist, but if Jimbo & Co want to be the subject of atrocious works of art, who am I to deny them their 15 minutes of fame?

[Moulton]

True. I've attempted to work with him on multiple issues going back more than a year now, but Jimbo claims that an unknown number of admins requested that he be the one to make the block. So, unless Jimbo was misrepresenting things, it sounds to me like those admins need to grow a pair and, at the minimum, speak up. From what I've seen, those admins didn't even have the guts to stand up and say they were the ones that asked Jimbo to do their jobs for them.

I know a significant amount of admins on project and off project were discussed. I also know that there were those within the Wikimedia Foundation that have experience with Wikiversity and witnessed some of the disputes first hand.

I know off-project admins complained, but, from the perspective of the average editor at WV, it sure looks like Jimbo came out of nowhere. Centaur of Attention had only recently gotten around to making a formal request for action on the page, from what I've seen.

If admins can't handle the problems on their own project, that's bad, but it looks even worse when, to all appearances, they never even tried to deal with it themselves. I'm wondering if it's related the the problems with JWSchmidt, but, if so, it's still pretty bad that they short-changed the attempts to address problems within the project.

SB_Johnny, and MikeU, would you please comment on the speculative theory that "an unknown number of admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be a consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was improper for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so)?

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm a better scientist than artist …

Two characteristics of a good scientist:

• The capacity to unearth his initially buried assumptions.
• The capacity to change his initial hypotheses or models.

Symptoms of a "scientist" without those capacities:

• Head, Brick Wall.
• Brick Wall, Head.

Resistant Learner, Educate Thyself.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

I'm a better scientist than artist …

Two characteristics of a good scientist:

• The capacity to unearth his initially buried assumptions.
• The capacity to change his initial hypotheses or models.

Symptoms of a "scientist" without those capacities:

• Head, Brick Wall.
• Brick Wall, Head.

Resistant Learner, Educate Thyself.

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

The problem isn't unearthing them. The problem is testing them. Right now I'm having a devil of a time testing H1.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm a better scientist than artist …

Two characteristics of a good scientist:

• The capacity to unearth his initially buried assumptions.
• The capacity to change his initial hypotheses or models.

Symptoms of a "scientist" without those capacities:

• Head, Brick Wall.
• Brick Wall, Head.

Resistant Learner, Educate Thyself.

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

The problem isn't unearthing them. The problem is testing them. Right now I'm having a devil of a time testing H1.

Sorry, I lost count at H_0. What is your H_1 again?

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

[Ottava]

Have any conditions been outlined under which Moulton would be allowed to edit again?

I'm going to try a three phase approach (or three projects) that should help Moulton demonstrate his awareness of community standards and his ability to work with others. Afterwards, I hope the community will have enough basis to trust him as a contributor and welcome him back.

[Jon Awbrey]

Have any conditions been outlined under which Moulton would be allowed to edit again?

I'm going to try a three phase approach (or three projects) that should help Moulton demonstrate his awareness of community standards and his ability to work with others. Afterwards, I hope the community will have enough basis to trust him as a contributor and welcome him back.

Ottava,

Please restrict your Cult Internal Affairs to Wikipediot spaces.

You obviously have no clue what a Total Phreaking Idiot you reveal yourself to be when a Pseud like you affects the arrogance to lecture Moulton on matters of conscience and conviviality.

Now Get The Fuck Out Of Our Faces Until You Grow Up.

With All Due Respect,

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Sxeptomaniac]

True. I've attempted to work with him on multiple issues going back more than a year now, but Jimbo claims that an unknown number of admins requested that he be the one to make the block. So, unless Jimbo was misrepresenting things, it sounds to me like those admins need to grow a pair and, at the minimum, speak up. From what I've seen, those admins didn't even have the guts to stand up and say they were the ones that asked Jimbo to do their jobs for them.

I know a significant amount of admins on project and off project were discussed. I also know that there were those within the Wikimedia Foundation that have experience with Wikiversity and witnessed some of the disputes first hand.

I know off-project admins complained, but, from the perspective of the average editor at WV, it sure looks like Jimbo came out of nowhere. Centaur of Attention had only recently gotten around to making a formal request for action on the page, from what I've seen.

If admins can't handle the problems on their own project, that's bad, but it looks even worse when, to all appearances, they never even tried to deal with it themselves. I'm wondering if it's related the the problems with JWSchmidt, but, if so, it's still pretty bad that they short-changed the attempts to address problems within the project.

Have any conditions been outlined under which Moulton would be allowed to edit again?

Per Ottava's comment, we'll see what happens, but most of the editors commenting on the block seemed willing to consider an unblock at some point. Who knows if the silent contingent will ever speak up, but it seems that Moulton has a shot.

[Moulton]

The Inverse Consensus Gambit

Yesterday, Erkan Yilmaz suddenly turned in his 'bits' and went dark on WV and on IRC.

Today, SB_Johnny suddenly blanked his user page and replaced it with note that he was "On break until further notice."

Meantime, in IRC, we have the following hypotheses on the table:

H0: Benign AGF (Assume Good Faith) that nothing sinister, nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary has happened.

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

H1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are a systems scientist, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty.

There are other hypotheses (H2, H3, etc) which we need not clutter this post with at this time.

On edit... Yet another WV Custodian, Emesee, has also resigned his bits. This comes after blocking Centaur of Attention (Odd nature) for an unspecified reason.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[SB_Johnny]

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB_Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

For the record, he called her by her first and last name on another page, both on the page and in the edit comment. I blocked him for 2 hours while I ran around looking for someone to oversight it.

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

Honestly, it was a big whirlwind, we were busy working on a bigger problem at the time, and the way it went down was a bit of a shock. Next time we can get together we'll try to figure out who thought what and when (there was very little first-person correspondence involved), and we'll air it out on the colloquium (as opposed to here... why so nosy?). Just be patient: unlike Moulton, JWSchmidt, and Jimbo, the others involved have actual jobs and/or other responsibilities, and we've already spent more time than we had to spare lately :-).

[Moulton]

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB_Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

For the record, he called her by her first and last name on another page, both on the page and in the edit comment. I blocked him for 2 hours while I ran around looking for someone to oversight it.

Tracy Walker and her fellow editors in IDCab not only called a lot of people by their first and last names, they wrote atrocious lies about them on the Internet's 7th most visited website, and then acted abusively toward anyone who sought to correct their egregious and inexcusable errors.

If Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Ian Ramjohn, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, "Bob Stevens", "Jaime F.", and the others think they can hide behind pseudonyms, whilst pretending to be centaurs, salmon, or chihuahuas, they have another thing coming. Wikiversity is not FurryMuck.

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

It's not too late to stand up to him, Johnny.

I'm sure you are aware that Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales began their Internet careers with a soft-core porn portal.

Perhaps they are still into S&M Bondage Fetishes, but I for one do not appreciate their outrageously sadistic practice of hurting people while gagging them. If they want to act out their sick S&M Bondage scenes, let them go back to Bomis.Com where such abusive and exploitive behavior is the norm. Bondage scenes have no place in a scholarly learning community, full stop.

Honestly, it was a big whirlwind, we were busy working on a bigger problem at the time, and the way it went down was a bit of a shock. Next time we can get together we'll try to figure out who thought what and when (there was very little first-person correspondence involved), and we'll air it out on the colloquium (as opposed to here... why so nosy?). Just be patient: unlike Moulton, JWSchmidt, and Jimbo, the others involved have actual jobs and/or other responsibilities, and we've already spent more time than we had to spare lately :-).

All you have to do, Johnny, is evolve to a Social Contract, and all those Po-Mo performance artists playing cutesy animals will go find another fantasy role-playing game to screw around in.

[Jon Awbrey]

For the record, he called her by her first and last name on another page, both on the page and in the edit comment. I blocked him for 2 hours while I ran around looking for someone to oversight it.

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

Honestly, it was a big whirlwind, we were busy working on a bigger problem at the time, and the way it went down was a bit of a shock. Next time we can get together we'll try to figure out who thought what and when (there was very little first-person correspondence involved), and we'll air it out on the colloquium (as opposed to here... why so nosy?). Just be patient: unlike Moulton, JWSchmidt, and Jimbo, the others involved have actual jobs and/or other responsibilities, and we've already spent more time than we had to spare lately :-).

SBJ —

Welcome to Reality. By way of orientation, try to get used to the idea that none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality give a Rat's Ass what sort of Wiki-Penance you Wiki-Priests and Wik-Priestesses beg the e-dulgence of Moulton to e-dure in your Blasted Wiki-Purgatory for what you regard as the Gawdawful crime of using a real name — known to all here — for one of the Kabal Kartoon Karacters in your Wiki-Parody of Hiya Learning, a site for sore idiots that besmirches the very name of every real learning institution that any of us ever attended.

If you cannot adjust to this Reality, then please go back to your Wiki-Playpen and make mudpies or something.

Sinsearly Yours,

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[dtobias]

none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality

How, exactly, do you know anything about rational adults or reality, Jon? Read about them in a book once, maybe?

[Jon Awbrey]

none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality

How, exactly, do you know anything about rational adults or reality, Jon? Read about them in a book once, maybe?

Greg and Kato and I consulted by email with numerous Rational Adults By Acclamation (RABA's) whose names we cannot reveal for fear of Exposing Them To Unwanted Attention From Irrational Infants, and we formed a Strong Consensus that all of us were Rational Adults By Mutual Admiration (RABMA's), but that you are really a Total Twirp (T²), and so we have sent our Rational Adult Bots (RAB's) to the far corners of the Internet to warn everyone about you. Hope you don't mind — it's not like it's an abuse of Rational Adult Power Tools (RAPT's) or anything like being a Rational Adult Dick (RAD).

Y'know, The Usual Way …

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Ottava]

If ... and the others think they can hide behind pseudonyms, whilst pretending to be centaurs, salmon, or chihuahuas, they have another thing coming. Wikiversity is not FurryMuck.

Can we have an administrator please delete this?

Please.

No more personal names. This act is what got us in this mess.

[Jon Awbrey]

If … and the others think they can hide behind pseudonyms, whilst pretending to be centaurs, salmon, or chihuahuas, they have another thing coming. Wikiversity is not FurryMuck.

Can we have an administrator please delete this?

Please.

No more personal names. This act is what got us in this mess.

How about this — we'll give you a list of things we would like deleted.

Fair 'Nuff?

Just Give Us A Month …

Okay, Maybe Till Christmas …

Ho, Ho, Ho …

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[GlassBeadGame]

If ... and the others think they can hide behind pseudonyms, whilst pretending to be centaurs, salmon, or chihuahuas, they have another thing coming. Wikiversity is not FurryMuck.

Can we have an administrator please delete this?

Please.

No more personal names. This act is what got us in this mess.

That's like blaming the US financial industry meltdown on excessive regulation.

[Jon Awbrey]

That's like blaming the US financial industry meltdown on excessive regulation.

It's all Obama's fault. I saw a Mackaine ad that said so.

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

[the_undertow]

Have any conditions been outlined under which Moulton would be allowed to edit again?

I'm going to try a three phase approach (or three projects) that should help Moulton demonstrate his awareness of community standards and his ability to work with others. Afterwards, I hope the community will have enough basis to trust him as a contributor and welcome him back.

Eh, just one phase - a simple unblock should work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

That's pretty close to my own assessment of the latest event. Really, calling KillerChihuahua by what was apparently her first name on the site was not only colossally stupid, it was an asshole move. It seems to me it was motivated not by what Moulton thought was right, but by what he thought he could get away with. I've been sympathetic towards Moulton, thanks to my own experiences with the same editors, but that sympathy is waning.

(Personally, I still wonder why Jimbo needed to be brought in, as it seems that a custodian on Wikiversity should have been able to take care of it. Not to be overly insulting to SB_Johnny, since he actually stepped up to do the initial short-term block, but I do wonder where the rest of the custodians' cojones are. It doesn't speak well that I, of all people, was the one that ended up removing her name from the edits.)

For the record, he called her by her first and last name on another page, both on the page and in the edit comment. I blocked him for 2 hours while I ran around looking for someone to oversight it.

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

Honestly, it was a big whirlwind, we were busy working on a bigger problem at the time, and the way it went down was a bit of a shock. Next time we can get together we'll try to figure out who thought what and when (there was very little first-person correspondence involved), and we'll air it out on the colloquium (as opposed to here... why so nosy?). Just be patient: unlike Moulton, JWSchmidt, and Jimbo, the others involved have actual jobs and/or other responsibilities, and we've already spent more time than we had to spare lately :-).

Well, that actually explains a lot. I just figured somebody should be asking the questions, and I can't help commenting on how it looks from my perspective. I can see how the situation with JWSchmidt seems to have come to a head with the incident. Patience, I can do, if there's an acknowledgment that problem exists and will need to be addressed. From where I'm sitting, it just seemed like no-one was asking the hard questions.

On the other hand, Moulton's increasing obsession with "outing" means I'm seeing fewer reasons why an unblock would be a good idea, though.

[Moulton]

Kadima Productions

I take vigorous exception the cutesy approach to mean-spirited Narcissistic Wounding.

I propose that, going forward, we limit our mean-spirited narcissistic wounding to the confines of an utterly atrocious Constructed Reality Soap Opera, with The Fiery Angel as the only authorized provider of the musical score.

Animal costumes may be worn, but are not mandatory, as Cats has already been done to death.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: The Jon Awbrey-initiated discussion of the Review being used as an extension of Wikipedia Talk pages has been moved to WRR. -- gomi]

[Lar]

none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality

How, exactly, do you know anything about rational adults or reality, Jon? Read about them in a book once, maybe?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Further I am at a loss as to why Moulton continues to cite real names of people who prefer to be pseudonymous here. Doing so strengthens the argument of all who say he should not have editing privs restored.

[Jon Awbrey]

none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality

How, exactly, do you know anything about rational adults or reality, Jon? Read about them in a book once, maybe?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Further I am at a loss as to why Moulton continues to cite real names of people who prefer to be pseudonymous here. Doing so strengthens the argument of all who say he should not have editing privs restored.

The explanation is rather simple. It is precisely because this is a part of the Real World, and some of us here are Rational Adults, and those of us who qualify as Rational Adults Realize that accommodating the wishes of others to use their pseudonyms is a Courtesy that is rationally extended only to those who are Courteous in return.

Do you see how that works yet?

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[SB_Johnny]

none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality

How, exactly, do you know anything about rational adults or reality, Jon? Read about them in a book once, maybe?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Further I am at a loss as to why Moulton continues to cite real names of people who prefer to be pseudonymous here. Doing so strengthens the argument of all who say he should not have editing privs restored.

Precisely because this is a part of the Real World, and some of us here are Rational Adults, and those of us who are happen to Realize that accommodating the wishes of others to use their pseudonyms is a Courtesy that is rationally extended only to those who are Courteous in return.

Do you see how that works yet?

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

I've always found that the guy who decides to "be the better man" generally prevails. There are cases where it's really necessary and relevant to point to the real name of the person you're talking to (and/or about), but in most cases it's not. Showing respect to your opponent is a very good debate tactic. Intentionally pushing their buttons is a great tactic if you don't want to continue the debate.

I doubt even Karl Rove would run attack ads during Spongebob Squarepants, eh?

[Jon Awbrey]

I've always found that the guy who decides to "be the better man" generally prevails. There are cases where it's really necessary and relevant to point to the real name of the person you're talking to (and/or about), but in most cases it's not. Showing respect to your opponent is a very good debate tactic. Intentionally pushing their buttons is a great tactic if you don't want to continue the debate.

I doubt even Karl Rove would run attack ads during Spongebob Squarepants, eh?

I knew Squarebob Spongepants …
Squarebob Spongepants was a friend of mine …
Oh wait …

Nevermind …

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

P.S. Since you are ν here, I will explain this once — lectures on Civility from Wikipediots are likely to inspire Rank Proφanity. So watch out for that. ~~JA

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Sxeptomaniac]

none of the Rational Adults who inhabit this Reality

How, exactly, do you know anything about rational adults or reality, Jon? Read about them in a book once, maybe?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Further I am at a loss as to why Moulton continues to cite real names of people who prefer to be pseudonymous here. Doing so strengthens the argument of all who say he should not have editing privs restored.

Precisely because this is a part of the Real World, and some of us here are Rational Adults, and those of us who are happen to Realize that accommodating the wishes of others to use their pseudonyms is a Courtesy that is rationally extended only to those who are Courteous in return.

Do you see how that works yet?

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

Or perhaps because using real names is just a cheap shot used by trying to gain the upper hand or get revenge in an internet dispute.

[Floydsvoid]

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

H1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are a systems scientist, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty.

Ahhh, so you are performing something akin to Wiki-Collider experiments.

Cause a crash & burn and do a post-mortem analysis to see if the sequence of events conform to theory.

Seems here you had gotten started an ethical debate amongst level 5 WVers when out of the blue a level 4 WMFer swoops in with the ban-hammer and smashes everything to smithereens. Shame really, would have been interesting seeing how the WVers resolved it on their own. I don't think all is lost since there are some after-shock rumblings still going on.

You can call me grasshopper, just don't call me Bill (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[the fieryangel]

Hey, just to throw a curve ball into this thread: a little bird told me that Jimbo has just had all four wisdom teeth pulled....

Maybe he'll feel better about this in a week or so?

In any case, this is not the time to be making appeals to the GodKing!

[Moulton]

I am at a loss as to why Moulton continues to cite real names of people who prefer to be pseudonymous here. Doing so strengthens the argument of all who say he should not have editing privs restored

Precisely because this is a part of the Real World, and some of us here are Rational Adults, and those of us who are happen to Realize that accommodating the wishes of others to use their pseudonyms is a Courtesy that is rationally extended only to those who are Courteous in return.

Do you see how that works yet?

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

Or perhaps because using real names is just a cheap shot used by trying to gain the upper hand or get revenge in an internet dispute.

H0: (Null Hypothesis) Assume Good Faith.

H1: (Lar) Something other than H0, but not sure what.

H2: (Jon) Reciprocity (Mimesis) is a two-way street.

H3: (Sxeptomaniac) Revenge Motive.

H4: (Moulton) Is there a Duty of Civil Disobedience (per Thoreau)?

Of the five hypotheses, one of them is falsifiable and testable by anyone, which makes it a valid scientific hypothesis that may be tested in a synthetic community such as Wikipedia or Wikiversity.

Essay question: Does Thoreau's idea make any sense, at least in some situations? Is the present situation one of those? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence (e.g. from Moulton's experiment), analysis, and reasoning. Be prepared to defend your point of view, and to compare your thoughts to those of other scholars who undertake to the play The Ethics Game.

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

H1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are a systems scientist, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty.

Ahhh, so you are performing something akin to Wiki-Collider experiments.

Cause a crash & burn and do a post-mortem analysis to see if the sequence of events conform to theory.

Seems here you had gotten started an ethical debate amongst level 5 WVers when out of the blue a level 4 WMFer swoops in with the ban-hammer and smashes everything to smithereens. Shame really, would have been interesting seeing how the WVers resolved it on their own. I don't think all is lost since there are some after-shock rumblings still going on.

You can call me grasshopper, just don't call me Bill (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Yes, I was surprised that an unregistered player of The Ethics Game came in to dramatically demonstrate the lower portions of the Kohlberg Ladder in a way so reminiscent of King Henry's encounter with Beckett.

That sharpened up the chasm between the 4th and 5th rungs on Kohlberg's Ladder.

The important question is what (if anything) anyone is learning from this unplanned (i.e. accidental) exercise in drama-driven learning.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[SB_Johnny]

Moulton, I don't mind being a part time volunteer lab rat for a good cause (or even on a whim). You don't pay me enough to be a full time lab rat.

[Moulton]

Moulton, I don't mind being a part time volunteer lab rat for a good cause (or even on a whim). You don't pay me enough to be a full time lab rat.

Nobody's paying me, either to protect the anonymous editors of IDCab from being sued for libel or losing their bits for egregious violations of ethics in journalism.

[Floydsvoid]

Moulton, I don't mind being a part time volunteer lab rat for a good cause (or even on a whim). You don't pay me enough to be a full time lab rat.

The first rule of The Ethics Game is that you don't talk about The Ethics Game.

Any talk about the game is a card played inside the game.

Don't show your hand and play one card at a time like everyone else.

Are Moulton's goals to research psychological phenomena or to inflict revenge on his adversaries? On a human level revenge can be oh so sweet. Particularly for a just and righteous cause.

That's what my card tells me.

This post has been edited by Floydsvoid:

[Ottava]

Am I the only one tired of Moulton hiding behind Jargon and outdated psychological theories that determine "levels"? There was a saying that you don't actually understand something unless you can discuss it in plain English.

[Lar]

P.S. Since you are ν here, I will explain this once — lectures on Civility from Wikipediots are likely to inspire Rank Proφanity. So watch out for that. ~~JA

While we're giving SB Johnny tips... If you ignore Jon Awbrey, you're going to miss some funny stuff, he's an awesome phrase turner.

However you won't actually miss anything important, because you've heard it all before.

Nobody's paying me, either to protect the anonymous editors of IDCab from being sued for libel or losing their bits for egregious violations of ethics in journalism.

Good thing, because whatever the heck it is you're doing, that isn't it. You couldn't be less effective if you tried.

Am I the only one tired of Moulton hiding behind Jargon and outdated psychological theories that determine "levels"?

No. But of course it's been decided by the Powers That Be ™ here that you have no standing.

[Milton Roe]

Hey, just to throw a curve ball into this thread: a little bird told me that Jimbo has just had all four wisdom teeth pulled....

Maybe he'll feel better about this in a week or so?

In any case, this is not the time to be making appeals to the GodKing!

Especially as now he'll obviously be even less wise than formerly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Dental pain is something I woudn't wish on anybody. Speedy recovery, Jimbo!

[Jon Awbrey]

P.S. Since you are ν here, I will explain this once — lectures on Civility from Wikipediots are likely to inspire Rank Proφanity. So watch out for that. ~~JA

While we're giving SB Johnny tips … If you ignore Jon Awbrey, you're going to miss some funny stuff, he's an awesome phrase turner.

However you won't actually miss anything important, because you've heard it all before.

And We'Re all Sick up to here ↑ with the Sounds of the Moonie Mantras that Wikipediots Chant to Drown out the Feedback from Reality that might've once Saved their Weenie Encyclopedia from Terminal Suckitude, but has No Chance of it Anymore.

For my part, I heard it all back in the 60s and 70s, when Cults at least had a bit of rhythm, and far better fascion sense.

Now go shave your heads or something, so we'll know to steer clear when we see you on the streets.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

User Cormaggio's Subpage on Wikiversity....

According to the Administrator's noticeboard on Wikipedia he's been permanently banned from that site and other wikimedia sites - what is the situation on this site is he banned completely for being uncivil or is it a temporary ban which the foundation have initiated. Dark Mage 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All blocks can be undone - this is not a Foundation directive; it is an "action by Jimbo". All actions that are not done as a result of a legal concern (eg removing libelous comments), are subject to local community approval. However, in an exceptional situation like this (and Jimbo's "God king" actions are very much the exception), it's best to take a lot of time to consider what's been done, and how we can move forward. Cormaggio talk 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question, though my comment on the Colloquium still applies I'll continue to support the block. Dark Mage 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My own personal opinion (based on private discussions with a number of Wikiversitans) is that Wikiversity is still in development and that it's certainly not large enough to absorb the fractious drama inevitably generated by the "Wikipedia Ethics" project, which, given its current state could not possibly move beyond personal agenda-driven soliliquys. For the Wikiversity remain engaged in it is to risk further alienating the remaining project leaders and will erode any community left. Moulton has continuously demonstrated that he is only interested in his own ends, achieved only by "outing" people on the Wikipedia project and, quite likely, anyone who wants to disagree with him too vehemently. No project based on that sort of bullying and fearmongering can possibly succeed. Bastique 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[thekohser]

Jimbo's first phone call to me (the one where he hung up when I answered, then a couple of hours later blocked my account on Wikipedia, then when I re-tried the number that had called me, he explained that he had had a bad connection earlier in the day from...) wait for it... the DENTIST'S OFFICE!

[The Joy]

Jimbo's first phone call to me (the one where he hung up when I answered, then a couple of hours later blocked my account on Wikipedia, then when I re-tried the number that had called me, he explained that he had had a bad connection earlier in the day from...) wait for it... the DENTIST'S OFFICE!

And that's the tooth?

[Jon Awbrey]

H2: (Jon) Reciprocity (Mimesis) is a two-way street.

Scholium. My notion of Reciprocity is inspired by Martin Buber, not Marcel Marceau.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo's first phone call to me (the one where he hung up when I answered, then a couple of hours later blocked my account on Wikipedia, then when I re-tried the number that had called me, he explained that he had had a bad connection earlier in the day from...) wait for it... the DENTIST'S OFFICE!

And that's the tooth?

Ah, dentists. Apropos of all our tatt threads:

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/wisdom_tooth_comic.jpg)

[the_undertow]

Jimbo's first phone call to me (the one where he hung up when I answered, then a couple of hours later blocked my account on Wikipedia, then when I re-tried the number that had called me, he explained that he had had a bad connection earlier in the day from...) wait for it... the DENTIST'S OFFICE!

And that's the tooth?

Ah, dentists. Apropos of all our tatt threads:

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/wisdom_tooth_comic.jpg)

Not fair at all. I have 14 tacks and am terrified of hypodermic needles. This is a case of 'one of these is not like the other.'

[Moulton]

Fear Projector

My own personal opinion (based on private discussions with a number of Wikiversitans) is that Wikiversity is still in development and that it's certainly not large enough to absorb the fractious drama inevitably generated by the "Wikipedia Ethics" project, which, given its current state could not possibly move beyond personal agenda-driven soliliquys. For the Wikiversity remain engaged in it is to risk further alienating the remaining project leaders and will erode any community left. Moulton has continuously demonstrated that he is only interested in his own ends, achieved only by "outing" people on the Wikipedia project and, quite likely, anyone who wants to disagree with him too vehemently. No project based on that sort of bullying and fearmongering can possibly succeed. Bastique 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the arrival of Godzilla-King and the Fearsome Basilisque on the black side of the chess board have intimidated and alienated at least half of dozen players on the white team. So far, Erkan, Emesee, SBJ, and Ottava Rima have pulled back from the game, leaving WAS 4.250 and JWSchmidt as the only active chess pieces on the white side of the game board.

But I digress.

Can anyone suggest the name of the fear that the Fearsome Basilisque is referring to?

H2: (Jon) Reciprocity (Mimesis) is a two-way street.

Scholium. My notion of Reciprocity is inspired by Martin Buber, not Marcel Marceau.

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

The term 'Mimesis' comes from Rene Girard, not Marcel Marceau.

This is a case of 'one of these is not like the other.'

This is also a case where someone who is not afraid of Godzilla-King, the Fearsome Basilisque, or Virginia Woolf needs to saunter into this lunatic scape-goat psychodrama and stare down the Phreaking Basilisque.

Undertow, I have confidence you will not turn to stone if you glower at the Fearsome Basilisque.

[Jon Awbrey]

H2: (Jon) Reciprocity (Mimesis) is a two-way street.

Scholium. My notion of Reciprocity is inspired by Martin Buber, not Marcel Marceau.

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

The term 'Mimesis' comes from Rene Girard, not Marcel Marceau.

Then attribute it to him, as it has nothing to do with me, and do not confound it with genuine reciprocity.

Yes, I know all about Predator-Prey Mimesis and Dyadic Cyclones, and it is precisely that species of 2-dim Duelistic Thinking (DT's) that sucked all those More Science High Alums into that LeStrange Distractor with IDeists and Pseudoscientologists.

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

[Dzonatas]

Moulton, you make yourself an easy target, but it is not like you are giving out the ammunition.

[Jon Awbrey]

Moulton, you make yourself an easy target, but it is not like you are giving out the ammunition.

I've never been reluctant about expressing my criticisms of Moulton, but when you come right down to it, at least he's trying to do something about the Moraless Moronic Monsters that just keep on cranking out of Jimbo's Wiki Meathead Foundary.

If only his dog-ed persistence were leavened by a modicum of adaptive and anticipatory sentience, then I might be able to toast him with Champagne and not just Harvey Wall Bangers.

The root of the problem seems to be that he Wants To Believe so desperately in the whole Wiki-Panoply of Wiki-Pretty Mythology that he just can't seem to revise his initial Hypothesis — drunk straight out of Jimbo's Magnum O' Hype — as to what the Real Purpose of Wikipedia has always been.

For that he has my utmost sympathy, as I can still just barely remember a time when I wanted to believe all that, too.

BTWT … ATIN …

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

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/wisdom_tooth_comic.jpg)

Not fair at all. I have 14 tacks and am terrified of hypodermic needles. This is a case of 'one of these is not like the other.'

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) All I can say is: "You have got to be kidding."

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Moulton]

The discussion on Wikiversity regarding Jimbo's unprecedented actions there continues to unfold in the Colloquium.

Just as AN/Moulton hopelessly divided the community at WP, Jimbo's unexplained intervention at Wikiversity has similarly deeply divided that community.

In the meantime, Ottava Rima has contacted Rosalind Picard and received feedback from her. Regarding her WP BLP, Picard writes, "I can quibble with a few other things here and there but I won't, and besides the bio is so much better now than it was when I was receiving a large number of harassing emails from a man named Don Hopkins."

If anyone is curious about those "harassing emails" arising from the false and defamatory content in that BLP, I was on the copy-to list and received them too. I will make them public to anyone who does not wish to remain mindlessly oblivious of the considerable harm caused by IDCab's persistent publication of those demonstrably false and defamatory claims regarding Picard's purported view of Creationism vs. Evolution.

[everyking]

The discussion on Wikiversity regarding Jimbo's unprecedented actions there continues to unfold in the Colloquium.

Just as AN/Moulton hopelessly divided the community at WP, Jimbo's unexplained intervention at Wikiversity has similarly deeply divided that community.

In the meantime, Ottava Rima has contacted Rosalind Picard and received feedback from her. Regarding her WP BLP, Picard writes, "I can quibble with a few other things here and there but I won't, and besides the bio is so much better now than it was when I was receiving a large number of harassing emails from a man named Don Hopkins."

If anyone is curious about those "harassing emails" arising from the false and defamatory content in that BLP, I was on the copy-to list and received them too. I will make them public to anyone who does not wish to remain mindlessly oblivious of the considerable harm caused by IDCab's persistent publication of those demonstrably false and defamatory claims regarding Picard's purported view of Creationism vs. Evolution.

Moulton, as improper as Jimbo's action was, it's clear the WV community isn't entirely comfortable with what you were doing. Why don't you just promise to stop doing what they object to and see if they'll let you back in?

[Moulton]

How to Play Bomis Boyzâ„¢ Bondage and Discipline Games, WMF Style

The discussion on Wikiversity regarding Jimbo's unprecedented actions there continues to unfold in the Colloquium.

Just as AN/Moulton hopelessly divided the community at WP, Jimbo's unexplained intervention at Wikiversity has similarly deeply divided that community.

In the meantime, Ottava Rima has contacted Rosalind Picard and received feedback from her. Regarding her WP BLP, Picard writes, "I can quibble with a few other things here and there but I won't, and besides the bio is so much better now than it was when I was receiving a large number of harassing emails from a man named Don Hopkins."

If anyone is curious about those "harassing emails" arising from the false and defamatory content in that BLP, I was on the copy-to list and received them too. I will make them public to anyone who does not wish to remain mindlessly oblivious of the considerable harm caused by IDCab's persistent publication of those demonstrably false and defamatory claims regarding Picard's purported view of Creationism vs. Evolution.

Moulton, as improper as Jimbo's action was, it's clear the WV community isn't entirely comfortable with what you were doing. Why don't you just promise to stop doing what they object to and see if they'll let you back in?

What I'm doing that they take vigorous exception to is Bearing Accurate Witness in accordance with Wikiversity Policy on Scholarly Ethics.

I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the temerity chutzpah to engage in authentic scholarship. So be it.

If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.

Let them do their damage. It's only a Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd Comic Opera.

[Ottava]

Moulton, as improper as Jimbo's action was, it's clear the WV community isn't entirely comfortable with what you were doing. Why don't you just promise to stop doing what they object to and see if they'll let you back in?

We've been trying to tell him that since the block.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to [b]Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the temerity chutzpah to engage in authentic scholarship. So be it.

If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.

Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page.

At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut?

Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight.

[Moulton]

I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the temerity chutzpah to engage in authentic scholarship. So be it.

If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.

Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page.

At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut?

Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight.

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

What died was any claim to being an authentic encyclopedia, crafted by authentic scholars with authentic credentials, who defend their scholarship with authentic peer review.

[Somey]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle?

[Ottava]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I tried to explain to Moulton that Kohlberg was a psychologist and not applicable to sociological structures. I then stated that I am a Hobbsian, and that if he wants to deal with me in a sociological way, he will have to change his approach quite a bit.

[Moulton]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle?

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia.

With respect to the E-Mail addresses of the responsible officials and respondents at ArbCom, you will note that they are openly published at Wikipedia. Are you aware of any recipients who have declined to be responsible officials at Wikipedia, and who have elected to hide their e-mail addresses to avoid responsibility?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I tried to explain to Moulton that Kohlberg was a psychologist and not applicable to sociological structures. I then stated that I am a Hobbsian, and that if he wants to deal with me in a sociological way, he will have to change his approach quite a bit.

I prefer to deal with you in a scholarly way.

If you wish me to treat you in a sociological way, I am prepared to put on my hat as an ethnologist who studies online cultures and the post-modern characters who inhabit cyberspace under imaginative avatar names and costumery.

[Somey]

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

I disagree, but perhaps we can agree to disagree...

With respect to the E-Mail addresses of the responsible officials and respondents at ArbCom, you will note that they are openly published at Wikipedia.

Are you saying that the "full headers" of the e-mails in question contained only a reply-to/from address, already available on a WMF site, with no IP address or server routing information whatsoever?

[Sxeptomaniac]

I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the temerity chutzpah to engage in authentic scholarship. So be it.

If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.

Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page.

At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut?

Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight.

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

What died was any claim to being an authentic encyclopedia, crafted by authentic scholars with authentic credentials, who defend their scholarship with authentic peer review.

Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP. Now where have I heard that particular brand of egotism before? That's right, it's the same as the "IDCAB", when they've equated opposing their behavior with being "anti-science".

The blame for your experience at WV failing to reach Kohlberg level 5 lies primarily with you and your overblown ego, Moulton. A social contract would involve a little give-and-take, meaning that you occasionally listen to others when they tell you your behavior is inappropriate, and change accordingly. You insisted on doing things your way to the detriment of other editors, so you got tossed, and I didn't see anyone terribly surprised that it happened (only at the way it went down). Frankly, your love for bringing up Kohlberg's model might be a little more convincing if I saw a little evidence you understood any of it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP.

No, scholarship ended the instant they permitted pseudonyms, which means it never got started.

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

[Rootology]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

So if it was you and JWScmidt vs... the entire rest of the WMF, did you ever even consider you may the one that's wrong, or are you too smart to admit that that you weren't smart enough?

[the_undertow]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

Would a legalistically-oriented social contract have specifically allowed you to post the full headers of the e-mail in question, though? Given that any such contract, in a Wikimedia context, would certainly include respect for user anonymity as a core principle?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I tried to explain to Moulton that Kohlberg was a psychologist and not applicable to sociological structures. I then stated that I am a Hobbsian, and that if he wants to deal with me in a sociological way, he will have to change his approach quite a bit.

Are you unnaccepting of his works due to his occupation? That seems silly. Kohlberg's moral theories most certainly apply to sociological structures, and are seen as guiding principles in business ethics - an huge aspect of sociology.

[Rootology]

Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP.

No, scholarship ended the instant they permitted pseudonyms, which means it never got started.

...and we're back to the argument that you and I historically had, that the WMF was never intended to be a peer-reviewed educational or scholarly source in the traditional context, and my belief that many scholars or career educational institution types dislike the WMF systems explicitly as the WMF systems have the connotation and public perception that the skills and value of the educational professionals--for example, yourself and Moulton--are devalued and not that special anymore.

[Jon Awbrey]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

So if it was you and JWSchmidt vs … the entire rest of the WMF, did you ever even consider you may the one that's wrong, or are you too smart to admit that that you weren't smart enough?

I nominate Rootology for State Of Florida Elections Commissioner.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Rootology]

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

So if it was you and JWScmidt vs … the entire rest of the WMF, did you ever even consider you may the one that's wrong, or are you too smart to admit that that you weren't smart enough?

I nominate Rootology for State Of Florida Elections Commissioner.

Sadly, the winners do get to write history in some cases...

But seriously, who exactly in the WMF besides Scmidt supported Moulton's Quixotic mission to apply his personal utopian vision of what an online project should be?

[GlassBeadGame]

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.


Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding.

[Rootology]

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of the any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.

Moulton, can you clarify if GBG is correct? That's what I'd always, thought, too.

[Jon Awbrey]

But seriously, who exactly in the WMF besides Schmidt supported Moulton's Quixotic mission to apply his personal utopian vision of what an online project should be?

O G, I would have supported his Academic Freedom to continue the inquiry in question, but I found out rather quickly that any notion of Academic Freedom is a total freaking joke at Cabalversity, as it is in all other WMF spaces.

"You have the right to remain ignorant" — that's the only freedom they fight for there.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Sxeptomaniac]

Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP.

No, scholarship ended the instant they permitted pseudonyms, which means it never got started.

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

I'm aware of your stance. My point is that Moulton's statement is highly conceited and more than a little ridiculous. WP's problems do not revolve around him.

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.


Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding.

I must admit I have been coming around to that interpretation as well. Perhaps I was just naive when I believed that he was actually open to dialogue.

[SB_Johnny]

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.


Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding.

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.

Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

[GlassBeadGame]

I must admit I have been coming around to that interpretation as well. Perhaps I was just naive when I believed that he was actually open to dialogue.

I'm not saying that he is not open to dialog. Far from it in fact. He is completely oblivious to the power imbalances inherent when a single contributor wishes to re-negotiate rules for a site with hundreds or even millions of other users. I'm not sure that this is bad thing or not. It would be more convincing if Moulton could cite an example of two where this approached has resulted in successful participation on sites other than his own.

[Cedric]

O G, I would have supported his Academic Freedom to continue the inquiry in question, but I found out rather quickly that any notion of Academic Freedom is a total freaking joke at Cabalversity, as it is in all other WMF spaces.

"You have the right to remain ignorant" — that's the only freedom they fight for there.

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

Well, not just any ignorance, but rather wiki-approved brand ignorance. It's all about the branding. So sayeth the Jimbo. Praise and glory to his name!

Let us prey . . . .

[Jon Awbrey]

O G, I would have supported his Academic Freedom to continue the inquiry in question, but I found out rather quickly that any notion of Academic Freedom is a total freaking joke at Cabalversity, as it is in all other WMF spaces.

"You have the right to remain ignorant" — that's the only freedom they fight for there.

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

Well, not just any ignorance, but rather wiki-approved brand ignorance. It's all about the branding. So sayeth the Jimbo. Praise and glory to his name!

Let us prey . . . .

I was away for a while, so I must have missed all that.

My main problem with Moulton at present is that his current practice is Anti-Educational.

It took me only a few days at Cabalversity to realize that anything I contributed or discussed there would be deleted or shoved under some rug or another in very short order. Moulton must know this — so he puts himself beyond much sympathy when it finally happens.

But the most anti-educational thing that Moulton is doing is accepting the under-lying premisses of participation in WMF sites, and thus he feeds the lie even as he plays patty-cake with it.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Ottava]

It took me only a few days at Cabalversity to realize that anything I contributed or discussed there would be deleted or shoved under some rug or another in very short order.

Please provide links to the pages that were deleted.

[Jon Awbrey]

It took me only a few days at Cabalversity to realize that anything I contributed or discussed there would be deleted or shoved under some rug or another in very short order.

Please provide links to the pages that were deleted.

A fine custodian you make!

I've been parading this elephant through the principal's office for a couple of weeks now, and you just now show up with your Wiki-Pachydermy Bag?

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

[Ottava]

A fine custodian you make!

I've been parading this elephant through the principal's office for a couple of weeks now, and you just now show up with your Wiki-Pachydermy Bag?

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

I gave you plenty of time to provide links to what you felt was unfairly deleted. Why not? I can't read your mind. I can provide a complete list, however, according to the delete log of Jon Awbrey, it is blank.

So. Come on. Out with it.

Edit - both Jon Awbrey and JonAwbrey accounts at Wikiversity have a blank "Deleted user contributions" log.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Jon Awbrey]

A fine custodian you make!

I've been parading this elephant through the principal's office for a couple of weeks now, and you just now show up with your Wiki-Pachydermy Bag?

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

I gave you plenty of time to provide links to what you felt was unfairly deleted. Why not? I can't read your mind. I can provide a complete list, however, according to the delete log of Jon Awbrey, it is blank.

So. Come on. Out with it.

Edit — both Jon Awbrey and JonAwbrey accounts at Wikiversity have a blank "Deleted user contributions" log.

You do understand that I was speaking English when I used the word "delete", don't you? Not whatever dialect of WP:RoboBleep you are speaking?

Clues 4 Duh Clueless

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

I disagree, but perhaps we can agree to disagree...

A social contract is a set of promises made voluntarily. It has nothing to do with the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation. Covenents and Social Contracts were devised as a sane alternative to Hammurabi's Idiotic Idea.

With respect to the E-Mail addresses of the responsible officials and respondents at ArbCom, you will note that they are openly published at Wikipedia.

Are you saying that the "full headers" of the e-mails in question contained only a reply-to/from address, already available on a WMF site, with no IP address or server routing information whatsoever?

Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?

I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the temerity chutzpah to engage in authentic scholarship. So be it.

If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.

Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page.

The Greek word martyr means witness. In cyberspace one doesn't have to die to bear witness. And even if they try to kill off one's avatar for having unmitigated gall to bear accurate witness, the act of annihilation is futile, since it's only an Internet avatar.

What I posted was a copy of outgoing mail from me to ArbCom. It didn't have any headers on it because copies of outgoing mail have no headers, full stop.

At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut?

Do you realize that what was in my userspace was evidence used to convict FeloniousMonk (and also to indict the rest of IDCab). Rosalind Picard has less than zero interest in the fate of FeloniousMonk, a disposable avatar whose name she is entirely unaware of.

However, you might bother to ask Ottava Rima what he knows about Don Hopkins or the others who published false and defamatory BLPs on Wikipedia.

Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight.

My goals have been published on my talk page for over a year.

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

What died was any claim to being an authentic encyclopedia, crafted by authentic scholars with authentic credentials, who defend their scholarship with authentic peer review.

Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP. Now where have I heard that particular brand of egotism before? That's right, it's the same as the "IDCAB", when they've equated opposing their behavior with being "anti-science".

There has never been any scholarship on WP. It is against the rules to engage in scholarship on WP.

The blame for your experience at WV failing to reach Kohlberg level 5 lies primarily with you and your overblown ego, Moulton. A social contract would involve a little give-and-take, meaning that you occasionally listen to others when they tell you your behavior is inappropriate, and change accordingly. You insisted on doing things your way to the detriment of other editors, so you got tossed, and I didn't see anyone terribly surprised that it happened (only at the way it went down). Frankly, your love for bringing up Kohlberg's model might be a little more convincing if I saw a little evidence you understood any of it.

Kohlberg Level Four behavior is, by definition, inappropriate in a community that evolves and advances from Level Four to Level 5. Anankastic Machiavellianism is anathema to Kolhberg Level 5 and higher.

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

So if it was you and JWScmidt vs... the entire rest of the WMF, did you ever even consider you may the one that's wrong, or are you too smart to admit that that you weren't smart enough?

"Think about right and wrong, and one immediately falls into error." —Taoist Proverb

"If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind." —Seng-Ts'an

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia.

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.

It's not that I do not accept the legitimacy of rules. It's that I understand rules to define a class of system known as a "game". In general such rule-driven systems may take on the character of a drama rather than a simple game (like chess). However, rule-driven systems are what they are (and are generally not what most people obliviously imagine them to be). Mathematicians have known for well over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.

Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding.

The reason I propose to evolve from dysfunctional rule-driven systems to function-driven systems is because function-driven systems are functional. I prefer functional systems to dysfunctional ones. (So did Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Augustine, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Lagrange, Poincare, Einstein, Gandhi, King, von Neumann, Feynman, etc, etc. It's not exactly a new idea.)

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of the any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.

Moulton, can you clarify if GBG is correct? That's what I'd always, thought, too.

GBG has formed a flight of fancy unsupported by solid evidence, sound reasoning, or coherent analysis. However I give him credit for submitting it to scholarly peer review by a subject matter expert on Moulton's mindset.

I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy.

[Sarcasticidealist]

No, scholarship ended the instant they permitted pseudonyms, which means it never got started.

Um, don't you think that maybe the bigger obstacle to Wikipedia being a scholarly resource is that it's written almost entirely by people who are not, in any sense of the word, scholars in the subject matter about which they write? Because sure, anonymity bad and unaccountable and all that, but I would think that if we're listing obstacles to scholarship on Wikipedia, mine would rank above both yours and Moulton's.

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist:

[GlassBeadGame]

I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy.

I hope you realize that I am trying here. I described what I had seen in what I hoped was fair and neutral terms without taking cheap shots. Could you please continue to disabuse me by:

• Telling me what then is the substance of your "social contracts, and;"
  
• Can you provide an example of somewhere you have joined a community that has extended a social contract that you found to be just and mutual.

[Somey]

Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?

You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!)

As for the other thing, well... any social contract that doesn't provide a means of grievance-redress, usually in the form of legal restrictions and remedies, isn't really a social contract - it's just an exercise in Utopian folderol production, which on the internet would be absurdly easy for people to game and abuse if actually put into practice. And you'll never get there on any Wikimedia (or related) project - their system is already too easy to game and abuse, and the kind of unanimity-of-purpose required for something like that can't possibly exist in the kind of contentious environment they've created. You might be able to do it on some sort of "ideologically pure" invitation-only site, though... But if I were in your shoes, I'd probably just give up on the internet completely, except for private e-mail, and maybe MP3 downloads.

I suppose that's just my opinion...

[the fieryangel]

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.

Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem.

And no, WP is not supposed to be about making "stone soup": it's about writing an encyclopedia. Some people are qualified to write an encyclopedia and some aren't. Unfortunately, on WP, those who are qualified to write an encyclopedia are weeded out of the process because of interpersonal issues such as this. So you get....stone soup....or as Greg K put it, the sausage factory.

That might be very nice, but it's certainly not an encyclopedia.

[Moulton]

I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy.

I hope you realize that I am trying here. I described what I had seen in what I hoped was fair and neutral terms without taking cheap shots. Could you please continue to disabuse me by:

• Telling me what then is the substance of your "social contracts, and;"
  
• Can you provide an example of somewhere you have joined a community that has extended a social contract that you found to just and mutual.

The substance of the social contracts is define here, along with an example. At the bottom of the example are links to the model site upon which the example is built. The model site (which is now a commercial enterprise) is founded upon the seminal work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger who (literally) wrote the book on Communities of Practice. That model site also has a model social contract. In the late 1990s that site hosted a public community, of which I was long a member. (As their business grew, the site discontinued the public community in favor of devoting all their staff to supporting their corporate client communities.)

Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?

You could have just said so in the first place...

It hadn't occurred to me that people had formed a wholesale flight of fancy based on el zippo de nada, rather than inquiring into the substance of the issue. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to be skeptical of haphazard claims and assertions. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to independently verify anything they heard from the quarters of Wikipedia, since it is widely known (and even openly admitted) that Wikipedians are not a source of reliable information.

Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!)

And therein lies the moral of the story. Do you see how easy it is for people to gin up bogus rationales, utterly unsupported by a shred of evidence, analysis, or reasoning? And do you see how astonishingly gullible people are when it comes to uncritically accepting such bogus claims? That's how the US got into an idiotic war in Iraq.

Somey, a culture that throws away science doesn't have future, full stop.

As for the other thing, well... any social contract that doesn't provide a means of grievance-redress, usually in the form of legal restrictions and remedies, isn't really a social contract - it's just an exercise in Utopian folderol production, which on the internet would be absurdly easy for people to game and abuse if actually put into practice. And you'll never get there on any Wikimedia (or related) project - their system is already too easy to game and abuse, and the kind of unanimity-of-purpose required for something like that can't possibly exist in the kind of contentious environment they've created. You might be able to do it on some sort of "ideologically pure" invitation-only site, though... But if I were in your shoes, I'd probably just give up on the internet completely, except for private e-mail, and maybe MP3 downloads.

Somey, the Internet is a collection of host computers that abide by a sophisticated protocol known as TCP/IP. It's an ingenious protocol, unprecedented in the annals of human history. And guess what, Somey? It works beautifully. It's highly functional. It routinely resolves conflicts efficiently and without an intervening judging agent. The principles of TCP/IP are apparently ill-understood and unappreciated by the lay public, even though the public now relies on it for their daily bread.

A few years ago, Rosalind Picard wrote an allegory for the computer age, entitled Machines That Can Deny Their Maker. TCP/IP literally made the Internet work. And now we have cyberspace inhabitants who similarly deny the foundation principles of the highly functional protocols that make their astonishing denial possible.

I suppose that's just my opinion...

And now you have mine, as well.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Ottava]

You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!)

We blocked his talk page because he posted more real names and their email addresses. Look at the email closely. 5 real names. One of the concerns with Moulton was the posting of real names. He was warned and asked not to.

[Random832]

You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!)

We blocked his talk page because he posted more real names and their email addresses. Look at the email closely. 5 real names. One of the concerns with Moulton was the posting of real names. He was warned and asked not to.

I can't find the email - where did he post it?

[Ottava]

I can't find the email - where did he post it?

Embeded link, can be found at the top of page ten in Somey's post (the quote from Moulton).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Moulton]

A Simple Science Experiment by an Anthropologist from Mars

Posted on Moulton's Wikiversity Talk Page by Barsoom Tork, Anthropologist from Mars...

Unblock Request

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed.

* Moulton (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock)

* Reason for unblocking:

Please unblock Moulton for the purpose of refuting H1, namely the as-yet unrefuted hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so). —Barsoom Tork 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice that, in accordance with the protocols of the scientific method, Barsoom Tork is attempting to falsify hypothesis H1. That's how scientists operate. If a scientist has an hypothesis that is otherwise well-supported by solid evidence, sound reasoning, and coherent analysis, he nonetheless tries like the devil to falsify it through an experiment over which the scientist has no personal control of the outcome.

Barsoom Tork has absolutely no control of the outcome of his unblock request. The outcome is entirely out of his hands. The allied custodians of Wikiversity have all the power and an unfettered opportunity to absolve themselves of the thesis presented in hypothesis H1.

All it takes to overturn a consensus is one person who stands up and says, "There is no consensus, therefore the extraordinary and unprecedented act of Jimbo Wales does not stand in this community of scholars."

Will H1 be reified or refuted?

Place your bets.

I understand that Montana Mouse will report the outcome.

[Random832]

I can't find the email - where did he post it?

Embeded link, can be found at the top of page ten in Somey's post (the quote from Moulton).

Sam Korn, James Forrester, Dan Tobias are all open about their real names (if those are their real names). So is Cla68, as far as I know, though I don't have a link handy to back it up.

So if by "5 real names" you meant "5 real names, only one of which was problematic in any sense" (I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username), then - sure. But that's a bit disingenuous.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Ottava]

A Simple Science Experiment by an Anthropologist from Mars

Posted on Moulton's Wikiversity Talk Page by Barsoom Tork, Anthropologist from Mars...

Unblock Request

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed.

* Moulton (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock)

* Reason for unblocking:

Please unblock Moulton for the purpose of refuting H1, namely the as-yet unrefuted hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so). —Barsoom Tork 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice that, in accordance with the protocols of the scientific method, Barsoom Tork is attempting to falsify hypothesis H1. That's how scientists operate. If a scientist has an hypothesis that is otherwise well-supported by solid evidence, sound reasoning, and coherent analysis, he nonetheless tries like the devil to falsify it through an experiment over which the scientist has no personal control of the outcome.

Barsoom Tork has absolutely no control of the outcome of his unblock request. The outcome is entirely out of his hands. The allied custodians of Wikiversity have all the power and an unfettered opportunity to absolve themselves of the thesis presented in hypothesis H1.

All it takes to overturn a consensus is one person who stands up and says, "There is no consensus, therefore the extraordinary and unprecedented act of Jimbo Wales does not stand in this community of scholars."

Will H1 be reified or refuted?

Place your bets.

I understand that Montana Mouse will report the outcome.

Since "unblock requests" are normally performed by uninvolved admin, and seeing as there are none, well, I think you are currently SOL.

We already told you what you have to do to get back in. I don't think anyone has changed their mind, nor do we trust you right now not to post personal information.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.

Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem.

I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert.

[Ottava]

I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert.

Second. I got into a dispute with him in IRC over his misuse of Kohlberg et al.

[Jon Awbrey]

No, scholarship ended the instant they permitted pseudonyms, which means it never got started.

Um, don't you think that maybe the bigger obstacle to Wikipedia being a scholarly resource is that it's written almost entirely by people who are not, in any sense of the word, scholars in the subject matter about which they write? Because sure, anonymity bad and unaccountable and all that, but I would think that if we're listing obstacles to scholarship on Wikipedia, mine would rank above both yours and Moulton's.

Folks who like that sort of thing can start a poll later to vote for the BIGGEST OBSTACLE, but all I did was mention one of the factors that prevents Kabalversity (no, Mr. Google, not Kabul University) from having any chance of supporting a community of scholars.

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

[Moulton]

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.

Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem.

I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert.

I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics.

[Jon Awbrey]

I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics.

Sparse? You have got to be kidding!

You might well begin with a bit of lighter fare:

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) Muskrat Wub (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

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

[GlassBeadGame]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) Muskrat Wub (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

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

Oh, now I know what the Velvet Underground were on about.

[Moulton]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) Muskrat Wub (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

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

Oh, now I know what the Velvet Underground were on about.

Somehow or other, I don't think the Bomis Boyzâ„¢ ever read that kind of highbrow literature. That kind of 19th Century literature would more akin to what Ottava Rima studies down there at Cathartic University.

[mikeu]

I can't find the email - where did he post it?

Embeded link, can be found at the top of page ten in Somey's post (the quote from Moulton).

Sam Korn, James Forrester, Dan Tobias are all open about their real names (if those are their real names). So is Cla68, as far as I know, though I don't have a link handy to back it up.

So if by "5 real names" you meant "5 real names, only one of which was problematic in any sense" (I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username), then - sure. But that's a bit disingenuous.

I am also open about my real name; it is on my userpage. But, I choose not to post my email address on wiki to prevent spammers from harvesting [*] it. For me it is not about privacy. It is simply an attempt to limit how much crap arrives in my inbox. I think that it is reasonble to respect that.

-mikeu

[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address_harvesting

[Sxeptomaniac]

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.

Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem.

I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert.

I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics.

Interesting excuse, but you had plenty of time on WV to demonstrate a little bit of your supposed research. Instead, you just beat the same old drum.

I could buy that you perhaps are an expert in one of the hard sciences, but you've shown little understanding of even some of the more basic concepts of the humanities disciplines. You don't even seem to grasp a case study's structure and purpose (although I suppose there's the possibility you were just feigning ignorance).

[Moulton]

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.
Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem.

I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert.

I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics.

Interesting excuse, but you had plenty of time on WV to demonstrate a little bit of your supposed research. Instead, you just beat the same old drum.

I could buy that you perhaps are an expert in one of the hard sciences, but you've shown little understanding of even some of the more basic concepts of the humanities disciplines. You don't even seem to grasp a case study's structure and purpose (although I suppose there's the possibility you were just feigning ignorance).

If you have a better model, by all means craft a better case study.

One has to lead by example.

If you find my example wanting, by all means provide a superior example for all of us to learn from.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I have gotten the impression that Moulton isn't comfortable being "just one of the guys". I think most of the Wikipedians who come up for harsh review here (including the ones Moulton doesn't like) have the same discomfort.

But isn't the whole point of Wikipedia and its sister projects to make rock soup? Everybody brings something they know about (and/or are interested in researching), and it all gets mixed in to make a tasty result. The readers of Wikipedia don't really care who wrote the article that settles their bet at the bar, so the editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be uncomfortable with pseudonimity, let alone anonymity.
Which reminds me, I need to figure out who gets my edits in my will :-).

Moulton isn't just "one of the guys", in any sense of that expression. He's an expert on this stuff. You can't not take that into account. Hence your problem.

I highly doubt his area of expertise is ethics, psychology, or sociology. He goes into depth on Kohlberg and a couple of other things constantly, but he hasn't shown the breadth of knowledge one should expect from an actual expert.

I have discovered that it is especially challenging to demonstrate any expertise in an academic subject whilst one is bound, gagged, kicked, and locked up in a closet. I am still researching the frontiers of an ethical best practice whilst dealing with aficionados of a Bondage and Discipline Culture, as the literature is a bit sparse in that branch of Applied Ethics.

Interesting excuse, but you had plenty of time on WV to demonstrate a little bit of your supposed research. Instead, you just beat the same old drum.

I could buy that you perhaps are an expert in one of the hard sciences, but you've shown little understanding of even some of the more basic concepts of the humanities disciplines. You don't even seem to grasp a case study's structure and purpose (although I suppose there's the possibility you were just feigning ignorance).

If you have a better model, by all means craft a better case study.

One has to lead by example.

If you find my example wanting, by all means provide a superior example for all of us to learn from.

Privatemusings already did one. I wouldn't claim that it's perfect, but he did a very good job. I'll put one of my own together at some point, but there are other issues with the project that need to be cleared up first.

[Somey]

It hadn't occurred to me that people had formed a wholesale flight of fancy based on el zippo de nada, rather than inquiring into the substance of the issue. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to be skeptical of haphazard claims and assertions.

Sorry, I just assumed it had been oversighted.

And therein lies the moral of the story. Do you see how easy it is for people to gin up bogus rationales, utterly unsupported by a shred of evidence, analysis, or reasoning? And do you see how astonishingly gullible people are when it comes to uncritically accepting such bogus claims?

Are you saying I "uncritically accepted" their claim that you'd posted an e-mail with "full headers"? (And it wasn't even to you, it was from you!) If that were true, why did I ask you about it, instead of them? And words like "astonishingly" are just hyperbole, Moulton - this isn't the sort of thing most people would take the trouble to look up even if it actually were as important as, say, a false pretext for military adventurism.

Somey, the Internet is a collection of host computers that abide by a sophisticated protocol known as TCP/IP. It's an ingenious protocol, unprecedented in the annals of human history....

Evasion. You know what I mean by the term "the internet," and besides, all I was saying was that you're wasting your time trying to reform (or advance the social development of) that system. Either way, the nuts 'n' bolts inner workings of the network aren't what we're discussing.

[Jon Awbrey]

el zippo de nada

you're welcome to the lighter?

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Somey]

(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)...

Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention?

[Ottava]

(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)...

Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention?

There is a KC (Killer Chihuahua).

[Moulton]

It hadn't occurred to me that people had formed a wholesale flight of fancy based on el zippo de nada, rather than inquiring into the substance of the issue. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to be skeptical of haphazard claims and assertions.

Sorry, I just assumed it had been oversighted.

I have no idea why Mike Umbridge Umbricht oversighted my outgoing mail to members of ArbCom and to other principal respondents in the case. That makes no sense to me.

And therein lies the moral of the story. Do you see how easy it is for people to gin up bogus rationales, utterly unsupported by a shred of evidence, analysis, or reasoning? And do you see how astonishingly gullible people are when it comes to uncritically accepting such bogus claims?

Are you saying I "uncritically accepted" their claim that you'd posted an e-mail with "full headers"? (And it wasn't even to you, it was from you!) If that were true, why did I ask you about it, instead of them? And words like "astonishingly" are just hyperbole, Moulton - this isn't the sort of thing most people would take the trouble to look up even if it actually were as important as, say, a false pretext for military adventurism.

I presume you asked me rather than them because I am a more reliable source of accurate information than them. But as to their reasons, I have no theory of mind to explain why they act as they do. (However, JWSchmidt likens it to the McCarthy era "red scare".)

Somey, the Internet is a collection of host computers that abide by a sophisticated protocol known as TCP/IP. It's an ingenious protocol, unprecedented in the annals of human history....

Evasion. You know what I mean by the term "the internet," and besides, all I was saying was that you're wasting your time trying to reform (or advance the social development of) that system. Either way, the nuts 'n' bolts inner workings of the network aren't what we're discussing

Please don't assume I know what you mean. The Internet is a well-defined term to those of us who were already using the Internet long before Al Gore invented it.

[Ottava]

I have no idea why Mike oversighted my outgoing mail to members of ArbCom and to other principal respondents in the case. That makes no sense to me.

Until you realize it, your talk page will probably stay protected.

[Random832]

Mike Umbridge Umbricht

And that's another thing.

The cheap shots really aren't helping win people over to your side (though that one at least is not NEARLY as bad as the comparisons to kristallnacht and 9/11)

[mikeu]

Mike Umbridge Umbricht

And that's another thing.

The cheap shots really aren't helping win people over to your side (though that one at least is not NEARLY as bad as the comparisons to kristallnacht and 9/11)

The Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is offering classes at wikiversity on techniques to block curses, hexes and jinxes cast by Moultons and other Dark Creatures.

-mikeu

[Ottava]

The Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is offering classes at wikiversity on techniques to block curses, hexes and jinxes cast by Moultons and other Dark Creatures.

-mikeu

We could totally nerd out for Halloween and do a Harry Potter theme.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

Please don't assume I know what you mean. The Internet is a well-defined term to those of us who were already using the Internet long before Al Gore invented it.

Well, that may be one of your biggest problems right there - thinking that "the internet" is a "well-defined term."

It isn't!

[Moulton]

(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)...

Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention?

No. Centaur of attention on WV is not one of the Harry Potter Furries Furies who is a respondent at ArbCom. Centaur of attention (aka Blogger 'Skip') is evidently a subordinate employee at Macys San Francisco Operations Center who has been on WP for about a year and a half as Odd nature. He/she signs his/her letters to the editors of the Hard News Cafe as "Jaime F" and is fiercely loyal to another content manager there named Paul Mitchell.

(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)...

Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention?

There is a KC (Killer Chihuahua).

That's another Furry/Fury in the Potterverse, ably portrayed by an amateur thespian named Tracy Walker, a horticultural maven in Florida.

I have no idea why Mike oversighted my outgoing mail to members of ArbCom and to other principal respondents in the case. That makes no sense to me.

Until you realize it, your talk page will probably stay protected.

Neil and Viridae offered a coherent theory.

Mike Umbridge Umbricht

And that's another thing.

The cheap shots really aren't helping win people over to your side (though that one at least is not NEARLY as bad as the comparisons to kristallnacht and 9/11)

It's not the scale but the the character that makes the analogy correct. It's like mountains and molehills. The analogy is one of similarity of shape. That means one can use the analogy to reason about the case, scaling everything (including the emotions) accordingly.

Mike Umbridge Umbricht

And that's another thing.

The cheap shots really aren't helping win people over to your side (though that one at least is not NEARLY as bad as the comparisons to kristallnacht and 9/11)

The Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is offering classes at wikiversity on techniques to block curses, hexes and jinxes cast by Moultons and other Dark Creatures.

-mikeu

The Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is offering classes at wikiversity on techniques to block curses, hexes and jinxes cast by Moultons and other Dark Creatures.

-mikeu

We could totally nerd out for Halloween and do a Harry Potter theme.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

Please don't assume I know what you mean. The Internet is a well-defined term to those of us who were already using the Internet long before Al Gore invented it.

Well, that may be one of your biggest problems right there - thinking that "the internet" is a "well-defined term."

It isn't!

The culture that has settled into cyberspace should not be confused with the underlying technology. Think of the underlying technology as the soil of a garden. What grows on that soil is a matter of what is being cultivated. The soil is indifferent to the foliage that takes root. The foliage, however, competes for a place in the sun. What's important is the kind of strange fruit the foliage yields. Soil itself is not toxic, but some plants in the garden can nonetheless bear quite toxic fruit, just as the financial markets on Wall Street can yield toxic securities.

[Ottava]

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).

We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).

We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.

I was going to comment that you are just as bad about this kind of thing s as Moulton. On reflection, however, I don't think that is true. Moulton is far worse than you at skewing discourse, using language in an unhelpful manner and making discussion difficult. But the factor that gives the impression of equivalence is that Moulton has much more to say of substance, so he is worth the additional bother....sometimes.

[Moulton]

Gnosimnesic Recovery from Agnosimnesia

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).

By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage.

We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.

I am using technical terms in a technical way, consistent with Moderns Systems Science.

[Ottava]

I was going to comment that you are just as bad about this kind of thing s as Moulton. On reflection, however, I don't think that is true. Moulton is far worse than you at skewing discourse, using language in an unhelpful manner and making discussion difficult. But the factor that gives the impression of equivalence is that Moulton has much more to say of substance, so he is worth the additional bother....sometimes.

And your point is? See, heres the thing. I responded to Moulton. You responded to yourself. You might as well have just posted in the Tar Pit for your inanity.

Are you bored? Lonely? Just felt that you needed to post so that people know that you are still around? What is your point? Oh, thats right, you never claimed to have one. My mistake.

I am using technical terms in a technical way, consistent with Moderns Systems Science.

Except not. You use terms from other fields without respecting those fields' definitions. You are a linguistic Viking in the rape, pillage, and plunder sense.

[GlassBeadGame]

I was going to comment that you are just as bad about this kind of thing s as Moulton. On reflection, however, I don't think that is true. Moulton is far worse than you at skewing discourse, using language in an unhelpful manner and making discussion difficult. But the factor that gives the impression of equivalence is that Moulton has much more to say of substance, so he is worth the additional bother....sometimes.

And your point is? See, heres the thing. I responded to Moulton. You responded to yourself. You might as well have just posted in the Tar Pit for your inanity.

Are you bored? Lonely? Just felt that you needed to post so that people know that you are still around? What is your point? Oh, thats right, you never claimed to have one. My mistake.

My point is that Moulton, difficult as he is, has something to say, at least sometimes. I don't see that in you, ever. If you want a private conversation use a phone or something other than a forum. Did you notice the number of your own posts that end up in the tar pit?

[Moulton]

Gnosimnesic Recovery from Agnosimnesia

I am using technical terms in a technical way, consistent with Moderns Systems Science.

Except not. You use terms from other fields without respecting those fields' definitions. You are a linguistic Viking in the rape, pillage, and plunder sense.

What part of Agnosimnesia didn't you understand?

[Ottava]

My point is that Moulton, difficult as he is, has something to say, at least sometimes. I don't see that in you, ever. If you want a private conversation use a phone or something other than a forum. Did you notice the number of your own posts that end up in the tar pit?

Funny, because I actually contribute to the Wikimedia system and you... oh, thats right, you make really piss poor posts and claim to moderate, when you really do nothing.

Wow.

Did you ever notice that I really don't care about someone as worthless as you? Do you really have anything to contribute? Really? Do you? Even your piss poor attempts at flames are pathetic and add nothing.

Who are you? Someone who got banned and whined a bit until the Poetlister idiots boosted you to moderate this site?

Does anyone even care who you are? You are just some nameless person who can't even make anything worth while here, let alone anywhere else.

So do bug off. You shown no understanding of the Moulton affair, and your commentary has very little to contribute besides "Look at me! OMG! I'm 13! I need attention". Seriously, child, why don't you go bugger off and harass other people?

What part of Agnosimnesia didn't you understand?

Its comments like that and your general attitude which will bury you deeper so that you aren't brought back on Wikiversity, Moulton. We have been very patient and spelled out clearly how you could have even got back onto Wikipedia, and you refused.

[Moulton]

A Jeffersonian Declaration of Scholarly Rights

Posted on Wikiversity:

We hold these precepts to be discoverable, that all scholars are creative equals, that they are endowed by the architecture of their brains with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are 1) the right to engage in discovery learning by the scientific method and 2) the reciprocal right to remain utterly oblivious by the adoption of inscrutable methods currently unexamined by modern science. To demonstrate these alternatives, dramatic encounters arise, deriving their predictable scripts from the recurring anecdotes of human history. Whenever any form of liminal social drama arises, it is the duty of the scholarly ethnographers to document and analyze it, and to derive new insights into the challenge of promoting improved scientific scholarship. —Moulton 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[GlassBeadGame]

My point is that Moulton, difficult as he is, has something to say, at least sometimes. I don't see that in you, ever. If you want a private conversation use a phone or something other than a forum. Did you notice the number of your own posts that end up in the tar pit?

Funny, because I actually contribute to the Wikimedia system and you... oh, thats right, you make really piss poor posts and claim to moderate, when you really do nothing.

Wow.

Did you ever notice that I really don't care about someone as worthless as you? Do you really have anything to contribute? Really? Do you? Even your piss poor attempts at flames are pathetic and add nothing.

Who are you? Someone who got banned and whined a bit until the Poetlister idiots boosted you to moderate this site?

Does anyone even care who you are? You are just some nameless person who can't even make anything worth while here, let alone anywhere else.

So do bug off. You shown no understanding of the Moulton affair, and your commentary has very little to contribute besides "Look at me! OMG! I'm 13! I need attention". Seriously, child, why don't you go bugger off and harass other people?

What part of Agnosimnesia didn't you understand?

Its comments like that and your general attitude which will bury you deeper so that you aren't brought back on Wikiversity, Moulton. We have been very patient and spelled out clearly how you could have even got back onto Wikipedia, and you refused.

This is another Ottava shill attempt to move a lost argument out of public view by trying to throw it into the tar pit. Please leave this public for awhile.

[Somey]

The culture that has settled into cyberspace should not be confused with the underlying technology. Think of the underlying technology as the soil of a garden. What grows on that soil is a matter of what is being cultivated. The soil is indifferent to the foliage that takes root. The foliage, however, competes for a place in the sun. What's important is the kind of strange fruit the foliage yields. Soil itself is not toxic, but some plants in the garden can nonetheless bear quite toxic fruit, just as the financial markets on Wall Street can yield toxic securities.

Poor analogy - plants in a garden can be cut down or pulled out, and completely destroyed, by anyone who happens along, which is clearly not true of the internet. Moreover, any botanist will tell you that soil isn't indifferent to what takes root, not even close. And there's always a lengthy growth period for a plant, whereas on the internet, things can appear suddenly, fully-developed, and without warning... I could go on...

The fact is, there is no viable real-world analogy for the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is deluding himself (or herself, as the case may be). It has to be understood on its own terms, which is why dealing with problems like Wikipedia is so challenging. It may be that part of your problem is that you assumed that everyone would be naturally receptive to your ideas, simply because they were (in your opinion, at least) good ideas. But of course, interactive websites don't work that way. If you want something that works the way you want it to, you really have to build it yourself; if you want anyone else at all to adopt it, you have to give it away; and if you want it to be popular, you have to compromise all over the place.

Meanwhile, when something like Wikipedia appears, threatening to do all sorts of damage to real-world culture and society (not to mention making the internet "suck" far more than it would without it), then you have to deal with it in multiple, complex ways - because it's a multiple-aspect, complex problem. Not something that can be solved with pie-in-the-sky "social contracts" and quasi-philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Do I sound cynical? Sorry about that...

[Jon Awbrey]

This is another Ottava shill attempt to move a lost argument out of public view by trying to throw it into the tar pit. Please leave this public for awhile.

There is always the option of moving individual posts to the Tarpit.

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

[Moulton]

The fact is, there is no viable real-world analogy for the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is deluding himself (or herself, as the case may be). It has to be understood on its own terms, which is why dealing with problems like Wikipedia is so challenging.

The Internet is interesting precisely because it features an innovative architecture the likes of which human civilization has not seen since God originally invented life on earth.

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

It's been 15 centuries since Augustine first suspected there was a flaw in the system that Hammurabi first committed to stone some 3750 years ago this month.

It may be that part of your problem is that you assumed that everyone would be naturally receptive to your ideas, simply because they were (in your opinion, at least) good ideas. But of course, interactive websites don't work that way. If you want something that works the way you want it to, you really have to build it yourself; if you want anyone else at all to adopt it, you have to give it away; and if you want it to be popular, you have to compromise all over the place.

Although I'd like to be able to take the credit, it was Leonard Kleinrock, Vinton Cerf, and Robert Kahn who had the better idea.

Do I sound cynical? Sorry about that...

Yah, I know. It's the Jon Awbrey Effect.

Just beware, Somey. The next phase after Cynicism is Bitterness.

You really don't wanna go there.

It's healthier to do comic operas instead.

Do you want to join me on the next one?

[Ottava]

This is another Ottava shill attempt to move a lost argument out of public view by trying to throw it into the tar pit. Please leave this public for awhile.

I don't move posts into the tar pit. Its pathetic internet wannabes like you who mouth off and fail to contribute who move things to the tar pit. You attacked me, and you are too pathetic to be able to have an accurate retort.

You are pathetic. Go ahead, leave it up, try to make people think that you are some how amazing because you proclaimed such. No one here is your friend. No one here is friends with another. Why? Because you don't know how to treat people properly, let alone understand how systems work.

You are an anonymous idiot, and you think you are clever because you can make some assanine comment? I'm sure everyone is laughing it up, because we all know how amazing you are.

The fact is, there is no viable real-world analogy for the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is deluding himself (or herself, as the case may be).

Or, perhaps people thinking that the internet is a magical fairy tale land with unicorns and the rest are just dreamers.

The internet is part of reality. All things are part of reality. Just because you wish it wasn't true as you hide behind a false name and attack others, doesn't mean that people haven't been doing exactly that for thousands of years.

One of the oldest fallacies is the modernist fallacy. In short, its the modern world thinking that they are special and unique compared to the rest of history. History repeats, humans stay the same, and nothing is actually new.

It's been 15 centuries since Augustine first suspected there was a flaw in the system that Hammurabi first committed to stone some 3750 years ago this month.

Augustine didn't care about Hammurabi. Moulton, stop merging philosophers and thinkers with random political figures while ignoring what they actually believed in. The name dropping doesn't serve you, and is just another reason why you were unable to work with others.

[Sxeptomaniac]

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you confusing computers with people? Last I checked, the consensus is that computers and people are still two very different things, and communication protocols for computers are not the same as human language and communication, nor are they ever likely to be, outside of special applications.

[GlassBeadGame]

This is another Ottava shill attempt to move a lost argument out of public view by trying to throw it into the tar pit. Please leave this public for awhile.

I don't move posts into the tar pit. Its pathetic internet wannabes like you who mouth off and fail to contribute who move things to the tar pit. You attacked me, and you are too pathetic to be able to have an accurate retort.

You are pathetic. Go ahead, leave it up, try to make people think that you are some how amazing because you proclaimed such. No one here is your friend. No one here is friends with another. Why? Because you don't know how to treat people properly, let alone understand how systems work.

You are an anonymous idiot, and you think you are clever because you can make some assanine comment? I'm sure everyone is laughing it up, because we all know how amazing you are.

Has Moulton, who you castigate and nanny about behaving himself on your worthless WMF project, done posting anything as offensive, disrespectful and disruptive as your last two posts directed at me? Of course not. He has only called real people by real names and not conformed to your minor rules. Thank you for the object lesson on hypocrisy.

[Random832]

... is not one of the Harry Potter Furries Furies who is a respondent at ArbCom.

Wonderful; more cheap shots (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) . The only users I can think of whose names are Harry Potter references are a not-very-active-anymore administrator called "Lord Voldemort", and of course Grawp. And it's not clear how the term "furry" is relevant to either.

[Ottava]

Has Moulton, who you castigate and nanny about behaving himself on your worthless WMF project, done posting anything as offensive, disrespectful and disruptive as your last two posts directed at me? Of course not. He has only called real people by real names and not conformed to your minor rules. Thank you for the object lesson on hypocrisy.

If you actually read the posts, then yes, he has made some really nasty attacks against people, on and off Wikiversity.

And I have far nastier things to say to you. You started the attacks, and I am not one to let such an opportunity go.

Wonderful; more cheap shots (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) . The only users I can think of whose names are Harry Potter references are a not-very-active-anymore administrator called "Lord Voldemort", and of course Grawp. And it's not clear how the term "furry" is relevant to either.

Introducing the world furry would probably be an evolution along Moulton's claim that there are Po Mo theater productions. A furry would be pretending to be a certain individual. I think Moulton wishes such a thing to be a case, as he has many alternate personas, such as Barsoom and Clarice that he loves to bring out.

[Random832]

By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage.

But the backdrop (at least, as far as the time period is concerned) is quite literally the years of 1991 through 1998. That's like saying that New York City as portrayed in Law & Order, or Marvel Comics, or anything else, is "a metaphor for" New York City. It's not. Gotham is a metaphor for NYC. Metropolis is a metaphor for NYC. NYC simply is NYC.

[Ottava]

But the backdrop (at least, as far as the time period is concerned) is quite literally the years of 1991 through 1998. That's like saying that New York City as portrayed in Law & Order, or Marvel Comics, or anything else, is "a metaphor for" New York City. It's not. Gotham is a metaphor for NYC. Metropolis is a metaphor for NYC. NYC simply is NYC.

Besides the question if Metropolis is NYC or Chicago ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ), I wonder if Moulton was shooting for the term "analogous". It would seem to be more appropriate (if there was a greater contrast, that is).

[Sarcasticidealist]

Hey GBG - I realize the viewpoint that Wikipediaspace has anything valuable to contribute isn't very popular around here, but I think WP:DFT is pretty sound advice all the same (not that I think Wikipedia invented the concept).

[Milton Roe]

One of the oldest fallacies is the modernist fallacy. In short, its the modern world thinking that they are special and unique compared to the rest of history. History repeats, humans stay the same, and nothing is actually new.

I don't really think that a human whose spent his or her whole life digging up roots and chasing small or large animals for food, and has a mouth full of rotting teeth, is probably "the same" as most of us are, in many important ways. Really bad breath and jaw pain is just the beginning. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Sure, perhaps our ancestors had many of our same emotions. But a lot less time to process them. And the kind and quality of knowledge can't be compared, since even I've had more time to read and think than all of my human ancestors, save (perhaps) a couple. Life for most humans was historically nasty, brutish and short. Most humans themselves were nasty, brutish and short. And if they managed to survive to puberty (odds bad) even sex for them was likely nasty, brutish, and short. I dunno about your life, Ottava, but mine's a considerable improvement over this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Nothing is actually new? There are some substances you need to try, mountains you need to climb, coral reefs you need to dive. And learn how to fly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Suggestion for you: the idea that there is a giant "modernist fallacy" is the darling of a bunch of clueless wine-sucking academics who've spent their whole lives pushing "classics" at a bunch of bored college sophomores, with this idea being the major justification for their sorry jobs. Sophomores who feel instinctively that the human condition actually has changed in a lot of important ways since the Greeks and Elizabethans, much less the neolithics--- and who are actually correct if they happen to live in the rich developed world, and have managed to duck the major wars and economic crises. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) But since the dang class is part of their gen-ed requirements, they can't get out of it and have to do a lot of pretending. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

"Why yes, professor, now I see that the "Savage" who quotes Shakespeare is actually morally superior to the shallow creatures in Brave New World... No wonder he is existentially driven to commit suicide. That would be just the thing to do..."

Nope, not buying it. Yeah, we still die at the end of it. But meanwhile, for an increasing number of us, that Bucket List is a completely different one. Have you jumped out of an airplane with a parachute, yet? Aldous Huxley tried LSD, but think he missed skydiving. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Ottava]

I don't really think that a human whose spent his or her whole life digging up roots and chasing small or large animals for food, and has a mouth full of rotting teeth, is probably "the same" as most of us are, in many important ways.

If you are a Republican - Just look at the Democrats.
If you are a Democrat - Just look at the Republicans.
If you hate either - Ron Paul sucks you loser, get off the internet.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Moulton]

The fact is, there is no viable real-world analogy for the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is deluding himself (or herself, as the case may be).

Or, perhaps people thinking that the internet is a magical fairy tale land with unicorns and the rest are just dreamers.

I notice that recently, Wikiversity was visited by a Centaur (of attention), a Salmon (of doubt), and a Chihuhua (of vorpality). That sure sounds to me like FurryMuck or some other kind of fairy tale world inhabited by animal avatars.

The internet is part of reality. All things are part of reality. Just because you wish it wasn't true as you hide behind a false name and attack others, doesn't mean that people haven't been doing exactly that for thousands of years.

I don't see Somey as attacking others, or even wishing the Internet to be anything other than what it is.

One of the oldest fallacies is the modernist fallacy. In short, its the modern world thinking that they are special and unique compared to the rest of history. History repeats, humans stay the same, and nothing is actually new.

The oldest fallacy is the one committed by Adam and Eve, when they committed the fallacy of dividing things into two binary categories variously named Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Lawful and Unlawful. Replacing a continuum with two binary categories is a lamentable mathematical error.

It's been 15 centuries since Augustine first suspected there was a flaw in the system that Hammurabi first committed to stone some 3750 years ago this month.

Augustine didn't care about Hammurabi. Moulton, stop merging philosophers and thinkers with random political figures while ignoring what they actually believed in. The name dropping doesn't serve you, and is just another reason why you were unable to work with others.

The error that Augustine cared about was the same error tht Hammurabi reified when he cast his particular collection of laws in stone.

By the way, Hammurabi's first law is one that Jimbo should review:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you confusing computers with people? Last I checked, the consensus is that computers and people are still two very different things, and communication protocols for computers are not the same as human language and communication, nor are they ever likely to be, outside of special applications.

Protocols are not just for silicon-based information processing entities. Protein-based information processors can use them, too. An entity doesn't have to be silicon-based to be functional.

... is not one of the Harry Potter Furries Furies who is a respondent at ArbCom.

Wonderful; more cheap shots (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) . The only users I can think of whose names are Harry Potter references are a not-very-active-anymore administrator called "Lord Voldemort", and of course Grawp. And it's not clear how the term "furry" is relevant to either.

"Furry" is a reference to FurryMuck, a popular online virtual community of the 1990s where everyone adopted an animal avatar (something like Cats).

Has Moulton, who you castigate and nanny about behaving himself on your worthless WMF project, done posting anything as offensive, disrespectful and disruptive as your last two posts directed at me? Of course not. He has only called real people by real names and not conformed to your minor rules. Thank you for the object lesson on hypocrisy.

If you actually read the posts, then yes, he has made some really nasty attacks against people, on and off Wikiversity.

And I have far nastier things to say to you. You started the attacks, and I am not one to let such an opportunity go.

Opportunity for what? Opportunity to engage in the Game of Narcissistic Wounding?

Wonderful; more cheap shots (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) . The only users I can think of whose names are Harry Potter references are a not-very-active-anymore administrator called "Lord Voldemort", and of course Grawp. And it's not clear how the term "furry" is relevant to either.

Introducing the world furry would probably be an evolution along Moulton's claim that there are Po Mo theater productions. A furry would be pretending to be a certain individual. I think Moulton wishes such a thing to be a case, as he has many alternate personas, such as Barsoom and Clarice that he loves to bring out.

Not 'Clarice', but Caprice, the Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel.

The Internet is rife with Post-Modern Pre-Apocalyptic Theaters of the Absurd. It's not a new genre. Comic Opera dates back a few centuries, at least.

[Moulton]

Gnosimnesic Recovery from Agnosimnesia

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).

By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage.

We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.

I am using technical terms in a technical way, consistent with Moderns Systems Science.

Take note of the above, as it comes up again...

But the backdrop (at least, as far as the time period is concerned) is quite literally the years of 1991 through 1998. That's like saying that New York City as portrayed in Law & Order, or Marvel Comics, or anything else, is "a metaphor for" New York City. It's not. Gotham is a metaphor for NYC. Metropolis is a metaphor for NYC. NYC simply is NYC.

Besides the question if Metropolis is NYC or Chicago ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ), I wonder if Moulton was shooting for the term "analogous". It would seem to be more appropriate (if there was a greater contrast, that is).

Please see above, where I actually said, "By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage."

I don't really think that a human whose spent his or her whole life digging up roots and chasing small or large animals for food, and has a mouth full of rotting teeth, is probably "the same" as most of us are, in many important ways.

If you are a Republican - Just look at the Democrats.
If you are a Democrat - Just look at the Republicans.
If you hate either - Ron Paul sucks you loser, get off the internet.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Barsoom Tork is a Martian Scientist (an Anthropologist and Ethnologist who studies Earth Culture, including Cyberspace Cultures).

Scientists are not politicians. We might be policy-makers who employ system models to derive optimal policies, but we are not politicians.

The reason is simple.

Politicians deal in rules, rather than mathematical functions that arise as the solution to system models. Except in very simple cases, the optimal regulatory policy for a complex system cannot be reduced to the kind of simple rules that politicians are obliged to deal with.

That same observation is the modern variation on the one Augustine made some 15 centuries ago. And it's the same observation found in the Adam and Eve story of Genesis.

All that was missing in that story was the obvious question, "What would be more divine approach?" And had the author of Genesis had the mathematical vocabulary at hand, she would have suggested that a more graceful option would be to employ a continuously differentiable function with a non-zero gradient everywhere.

[Ottava]

I notice that recently, Wikiversity was visited by a Centaur (of attention), a Salmon (of doubt), and a Chihuhua (of vorpality). That sure sounds to me like FurryMuck or some other kind of fairy tale world inhabited by animal avatars.

So get out your dice, hope to roll and six and smite them with your skillz.

The oldest fallacy is the one committed by Adam and Eve, when they committed the fallacy of dividing things into two binary categories variously named Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Lawful and Unlawful. Replacing a continuum with two binary categories is a lamentable mathematical error.

Possibly, if you deny that Adam had the power of onomatheia. But if you deny that, why even bother believing in Adam and Eve?

The error that Augustine cared about was the same error tht Hammurabi reified when he cast his particular collection of laws in stone.

No.

Opportunity for what? Opportunity to engage in the Game of Narcissistic Wounding?

Opportunity to trample over amateur flamers.

Please see above, where I actually said, "By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage."

I think you need to invest in a better dictionary, or at least one with proper definitions. I can think of a few that you could use.

That same observation is the modern variation on the one Augustine made some 15 centuries ago. And it's the same observation found in the Adam and Eve story of Genesis.

All that was missing in that story was the obvious question, "What would be more divine approach?" And had the author of Genesis had the mathematical vocabulary at hand, she would have suggested that a more graceful option would be to employ a continuously differentiable function with a non-zero gradient everywhere.

Oh yes. The metaphysical master Moulton expressing what the great nature goddess would have done.

[Sxeptomaniac]

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you confusing computers with people? Last I checked, the consensus is that computers and people are still two very different things, and communication protocols for computers are not the same as human language and communication, nor are they ever likely to be, outside of special applications.

Protocols are not just for silicon-based information processing entities. Protein-based information processors can use them, too. An entity doesn't have to be silicon-based to be functional.

OK. You didn't actually dispute anything I said. Yes, humans and computers both have protocols, but an internet protocol is very different from a human one. They serve very different purposes, and to suggest that TCP/IP is somehow applicable to human communication tells me you don't understand people, computers, or both at a fundamental level.

[Milton Roe]

Scientists are not politicians. We might be policy-makers who employ system models to derive optimal policies, but we are not politicians.

The reason is simple.

Politicians deal in rules, rather than mathematical functions that arise as the solution to system models. Except in very simple cases, the optimal regulatory policy for a complex system cannot be reduced to the kind of simple rules that politicians are obliged to deal with.

That same observation is the modern variation on the one Augustine made some 15 centuries ago. And it's the same observation found in the Adam and Eve story of Genesis.

All that was missing in that story was the obvious question, "What would be more divine approach?" And had the author of Genesis had the mathematical vocabulary at hand, she would have suggested that a more graceful option would be to employ a continuously differentiable function with a non-zero gradient everywhere.

Um, I"ve tried to stay out of this, but since you've strayed into the hard sciences, I get to have my two-paragraph say. Much as I hate the idea of binary thinking in the often "continuously differentiable" possibile model equations for understanding the universe (especially the social one), its a big mistake to imagine that the universe itself is constructed entirely of some Einsteinian "continuously differentiable function with a non-zero gradient everywhere." Which for the non mathematical of you, means smooth hills and valleys everywhere, and no cliffs or edges. Also without any "yes and no" parts.

Well, that's wrong. The above manifold works fine for low-energy field equations and QM probability functions. However, the universe presents us with plenty of objective non-continuously differentiable functions! They are called "particles." And a lot of events are inherently binary, inasmuch as when the probability wave has collapsed, the event has either happened or not, and there is an excluded middle. The atom decays or not. It emits or absorbs a photon or not. The nerve fires or not. That's just the way it is-- God threw in some integers. There's are elements 1, 2, 3 and 4, because they have 1, 2, 3 or 4 protons. There are no elements pi or square root of 2, or even elements 1.5 and 2.5. That just isn't how the world was set up-- non continuity. So find a better metaphor for fuzzy logic, since physics is not going to support you all the way, any more than it did Einstein.

[Moulton]

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you confusing computers with people? Last I checked, the consensus is that computers and people are still two very different things, and communication protocols for computers are not the same as human language and communication, nor are they ever likely to be, outside of special applications.

Protocols are not just for silicon-based information processing entities. Protein-based information processors can use them, too. An entity doesn't have to be silicon-based to be functional.

OK. You didn't actually dispute anything I said. Yes, humans and computers both have protocols, but an internet protocol is very different from a human one. They serve very different purposes, and to suggest that TCP/IP is somehow applicable to human communication tells me you don't understand people, computers, or both at a fundamental level.

I beg to differ.

Please see these Computer Dialogues from 1985, which illustrate my point — namely that functional protocols for the dialectic process are universal, and not a function of whether the information-processing entities are made of meat.

[Lar]

Barsoom Tork is a Martian Scientist (an Anthropologist and Ethnologist who studies Earth Culture, including Cyberspace Cultures).

My null hypothesis (H0) is that Barsoom Tork is a figment of your imagination, and not a very funny one at that.

H1 would be that Barsoom Tork exists in physical reality, and is a provable hypothesis.

Prove the validity of H1. Make sure you do so in a way that conforms to our mutually agreed to social contract...

If you refuse to do so in a way that is acceptable to me, I reserve the right to remind you of that, at length, at every opportunity, whether or not it's relevant to the matter being discussed.

[Moulton]

Mike Umbricht blocks 260,000 IPs in Eastern Massachusetts

If Moulton succeeds in having the Wikipediiots block all of Boston and several universities, then we should give him a medal. Thus is Wikipedia's endgame: all IPs everywhere blocked, with only SlimVirgin, David Gerard, and Jimbo having block-exempt bits. Jimbopedia.

LOL. I'm honestly surprised that you didn't think that it was that way already based on some of the things you've said.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Other than Jimbo, only Gerard and SlimVirgin have block-exempt bits!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

# 01:16, 30 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.160.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user evading block with multiple ips)
# 01:16, 30 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.162.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user evading block with multiple ips)
# 01:16, 30 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.163.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user evading block with multiple ips)
# 01:15, 30 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 141.154.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user evading block with multiple ips)
# 22:22, 29 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.162.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user using multiple ips to avoid block)
# 22:21, 29 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.160.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user using multiple ips to avoid block)
# 21:34, 29 September 2008 Emesee (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.163.102.11 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎
# 21:32, 29 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.163.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user evading block from multiple ips)
# 21:21, 29 September 2008 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) blocked 141.154.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (blocked user evading block from multiple ips)

=====================================

IRC with Mike Umbricht...

(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(09:19:37 PM) mikeu: You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
(09:49:09 PM) Moulton: It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
(09:51:02 PM) mikeu: it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
(09:51:58 PM) Moulton: It's from Genesis 2:17.
(09:52:16 PM) Moulton: Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
(09:53:46 PM) mikeu: no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
(09:53:54 PM) Moulton: I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
(09:54:37 PM) mikeu: you need to stop contacting me
(09:54:41 PM) Moulton: Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
(09:55:04 PM) Moulton: And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
(09:55:25 PM) Moulton: The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
(09:55:36 PM) mikeu: are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
(09:56:04 PM) Moulton: There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
(09:56:14 PM) Moulton: Do you know what the statistic is?
(09:56:17 PM) mikeu: 21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
(09:56:56 PM) Moulton: You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
(09:57:35 PM) Moulton: You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
(09:58:34 PM) mikeu: stop contacting me
(09:58:45 PM) Moulton: The lessons may, at one time, have originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
(09:59:10 PM) mikeu: "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you
(09:59:13 PM) Moulton: Stop disrupting the human learning process. It is arrogant of you to disrupt the learning of others.
(09:59:47 PM) Moulton: As long as you arrogantly interfere with the learning process, the world will contact you and beseech you to discontinue the practice of disrupting learning.
(10:00:42 PM) Moulton: If you want me to leave you alone, Mike, you have to get out of the way of scientific discovery learning.
(10:01:43 PM) Moulton: If you can't stand the science, go back to fairy tale worlds.
(10:03:21 PM) Moulton: I expect Wikiversity, a 501(c)(3) enterprise, to support the mission of education, not interfere with it and disrupt it.

=====================================

Notice how Mike manifests a mix of fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy. That's the toxic cocktail he received from Jimbo. And that toxic cocktail is not healthy.

When someone with that toxic cocktail also exercise political power over others, the result is known by another word that really does appear in the text of Genesis 2:17.

The combination of political power along with fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy is called Evil in that ancient text.

There is little anyone can do about Mike's fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy. Those are his issues to struggle with. But he ought not to have political power over others whilst in the grips of that toxic cocktail.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Notice how Mike manifests a mix of fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy

If some kook popped up on my screen and starting blurting clumsy mock-biblicals about death at me, I might be rather creeped-out too. Those lines couldn't be better designed to trigger meaningless melodrama.

[thekohser]

Notice how Mike manifests a mix of fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy

If some kook popped up on my screen and starting blurting clumsy mock-biblicals about death at me, I might be rather creeped-out too. Those lines couldn't be better designed to trigger meaningless melodrama.

Oh, come off it, UOAD.

It's a slight modification of a Bible verse, which Moulton was using as an analogy (knowledge of civility for knowledge of good and evil), and this dopey Mike actually DENIES TWICE that it's even in the Bible! It sounds to me like he's about 16 years old.

(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(09:19:37 PM) mikeu: You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
(09:49:09 PM) Moulton: It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
(09:51:02 PM) mikeu: it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
(09:51:58 PM) Moulton: It's from Genesis 2:17.
(09:52:16 PM) Moulton: Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
(09:53:46 PM) mikeu: no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable

And the King James version sayeth:

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Jesus Christ, save us from these feeble-minded children who not only contribute to Wikipedia, but RULE it with their oppressive tools. They can't even properly spell "careful".

Greg

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Notice how Mike manifests a mix of fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy

If some kook popped up on my screen and starting blurting clumsy mock-biblicals about death at me, I might be rather creeped-out too. Those lines couldn't be better designed to trigger meaningless melodrama.

Oh, come off it, UOAD.

It's a slight modification of a Bible verse, which Moulton was using as an analogy (knowledge of civility for knowledge of good and evil), and this dopey Mike actually DENIES TWICE that it's even in the Bible! It sounds to me like he's about 16 years old.

(09:14:40 PM) Moulton: But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(09:19:37 PM) mikeu: You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
(09:49:09 PM) Moulton: It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
(09:51:02 PM) mikeu: it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
(09:51:58 PM) Moulton: It's from Genesis 2:17.
(09:52:16 PM) Moulton: Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
(09:53:46 PM) mikeu: no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable

And the King James version sayeth:

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Jesus Christ, save us from these feeble-minded children who not only contribute to Wikipedia, but RULE it with their oppressive tools. They can't even properly spell "careful".

Greg

I wasn't disputing the source of the words or the fecklessness of the wikikid.

I do dispute the characterization as "fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy", and later "Evil" - when all I notice is a fairly predictable response to some baiting with an incongruous copy-n-paste.

[dogbiscuit]

Notice how Mike manifests a mix of fear, ignorance, mistrust, and lack of empathy

If some kook popped up on my screen and starting blurting clumsy mock-biblicals about death at me, I might be rather creeped-out too. Those lines couldn't be better designed to trigger meaningless melodrama.

Oh, come off it, UOAD.

It's a slight modification of a Bible verse, which Moulton was using as an analogy (knowledge of civility for knowledge of good and evil), and this dopey Mike actually DENIES TWICE that it's even in the Bible! It sounds to me like he's about 16 years old.

What I am uncomfortable with, is given that Dopey Mike has explicitly said that this slightly creepy phrasing (which quote doesn't actually work as the bible seems to be saying "stay ignorant - it's good for you in the long term.") the character Moulton deliberately does not seek to allay any concerns. It's a bit of a silly game for the character Moulton to be made to play. It is in character, goading people into persecuting the Moulton character.

Barry's role-playing games became tiresome some time ago, and I am quite happy to assume it is my inferior intellect that means I just don't see the higher purpose, but it also concerns me that these games of ambiguity do not reflect well on WR. In my personal view, the Moulton character is walking a very fine line, and I'm not sure he has a good sense of balance.

[thekohser]

Barry's role-playing games became tiresome some time ago, and I am quite happy to assume it is my inferior intellect that means I just don't see the higher purpose, but it also concerns me that these games of ambiguity do not reflect well on WR. In my personal view, the Moulton character is walking a very fine line, and I'm not sure he has a good sense of balance.

Getting half of Boston blocked from editing Wikipedia for a couple of hours -- higher purpose. Perhaps Wikipediots will begin to understand that massive blocking is inherently in conflict with the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". They should do away with one or the other.

Oh, wait... it's not actually an encyclopedia. It's a revenge platform. Thus, Moulton's just playing according to the design. So, what's the problem?

[dogbiscuit]

Getting half of Boston blocked from editing Wikipedia for a couple of hours -- higher purpose. Perhaps Wikipediots will begin to understand that massive blocking is inherently in conflict with the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". They should do away with one or the other.

Oh, wait... it's not actually an encyclopedia. It's a revenge platform. Thus, Moulton's just playing according to the design. So, what's the problem?

I am aware that Moulton points out the inconsistencies and holes in how Wikipedia works. I am simply not a fan of taking to the low ground to do it. When I get to the point that I think, I don't like how he was treated, but I can understand why they did it and I would do the same" then the experiment fails, in my book. It's all a bit "Please don't poke the bear, it will attack." Let's see what happens if I poke it. Oh, it attacked. So what? I mean, its a bit like big game hunting in London Zoo.

[Moulton]

What I am uncomfortable with, is given that Dopey Mike has explicitly said that this slightly creepy phrasing (which quote doesn't actually work as the bible seems to be saying "stay ignorant - it's good for you in the long term.") the character Moulton deliberately does not seek to allay any concerns. It's a bit of a silly game for the character Moulton to be made to play. It is in character, goading people into persecuting the Moulton character.

Actually, the passage doesn't say to remain totally ignorant of the concept of Good and Evil. What the passage hints at (but doesn't come out and say in plain math) is that Good and Evil are two extremes of a continuous axis, and that dividing all acts into just those two labels does violence to the mathematical concept of gradations and degrees.

We can excuse the authors of those ancient texts for not suggesting the adoption of a continuously differentiable Error Function, as Archimedes, Newton, and Leibniz hadn't quite gotten around to inventing the Calculus yet.

Barry's role-playing games became tiresome some time ago, and I am quite happy to assume it is my inferior intellect that means I just don't see the higher purpose, but it also concerns me that these games of ambiguity do not reflect well on WR. In my personal view, the Moulton character is walking a very fine line, and I'm not sure he has a good sense of balance.

The line I'm sauntering is the one mapped out in the gracefully divine Error Function.

Getting half of Boston blocked from editing Wikipedia for a couple of hours -- higher purpose. Perhaps Wikipediots will begin to understand that massive blocking is inherently in conflict with the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". They should do away with one or the other.

Oh, wait... it's not actually an encyclopedia. It's a revenge platform. Thus, Moulton's just playing according to the design. So, what's the problem?

The problem is the same one faced by Moses, Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Hillel, Jesus, Beckett, Galileo, Darwin, Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Mandela, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lama.

The problem is how to get more Wikimedians to think as insightfully as NewYorkBrad and Alison.

I am aware that Moulton points out the inconsistencies and holes in how Wikipedia works. I am simply not a fan of taking to the low ground to do it. When I get to the point that I think, I don't like how he was treated, but I can understand why they did it and I would do the same" then the experiment fails, in my book. It's all a bit "Please don't poke the bear, it will attack." Let's see what happens if I poke it. Oh, it attacked. So what? I mean, its a bit like big game hunting in London Zoo.

Merely pointing out the dysfunctionality is rather futile, don't you think? Why do you suppose Socrates and Jesus elected to act out their dramas rather than just point out the problems in a brief essay posted on their dusty blogs?

Galileo did try writing a Socratic dialogue. The Pope threw him in the hoosegow anyway.

If I were as gifted as Fyodor Dostoevsky, Mark Twain, or JK Rowling, I'd just write yet another version of the same novel.

Alas I suck at storycraft and dramaturgy.

Which is why I appreciate how terribly important it is.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Kato]

The problem is the same one faced by Moses, Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Hillel, Jesus, Beckett, Galileo, Darwin, Gandhi, King, Mandela, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lama.

What? That problem when your feudal, theocratic dictatorship that impoverished millions is taken from you, and you spend the rest of your life being funded by American propagandists and courting celebrities, to try and get it back?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

Barry's role-playing games became tiresome some time ago, and I am quite happy to assume it is my inferior intellect that means I just don't see the higher purpose, but it also concerns me that these games of ambiguity do not reflect well on WR. In my personal view, the Moulton character is walking a very fine line, and I'm not sure he has a good sense of balance.

Getting half of Boston blocked from editing Wikipedia for a couple of hours -- higher purpose. Perhaps Wikipediots will begin to understand that massive blocking is inherently in conflict with the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". They should do away with one or the other.

All that proves is that WP doesn't live up to its own hype. It's like going all out to prove fast-food burgers don't look like what's shown in the ads. Big deal.

[Somey]

What I am uncomfortable with, is given that Dopey Mike has explicitly said that this slightly creepy phrasing (which quote doesn't actually work as the bible seems to be saying "stay ignorant - it's good for you in the long term.") the character Moulton deliberately does not seek to allay any concerns. It's a bit of a silly game for the character Moulton to be made to play. It is in character, goading people into persecuting the Moulton character.

Actually, the passage doesn't say to remain totally ignorant of the concept of Good and Evil. What the passage hints at (but doesn't come out and say in plain math) is that Good and Evil are two extremes of a continuous axis, and that dividing all acts into just those two labels does violence to the mathematical concept of gradations and degrees.

Once again, Moulton, you're deliberately and purposefully using obfuscation, deception, cherry-picking, and largely-meaningless jargon to evade the key issue.

You know very goddamn well that the person you were "chatting" with wouldn't have known the Bible well enough to assume that you weren't trying to creep him out, or even threaten him, with that reference to "death" - but you did it anyway. And yes, this does reflect badly on us for tolerating you while you do things like this. You don't even get to argue that point, it's not for you to decide.

Getting yourself banned over there, whether it be on WV, WP, IRC, or TIAA/CREF, doesn't mean you get a pass over here, Moulton. If you're going to play games with these people, don't try to use WR as your personal scoreboard, or you'll find that the plug will be pulled very quickly.

[Moulton]

Salmon, Salmon, everywhere. Nor any Cop to think.

All that proves is that WP doesn't live up to its own hype. ... Big deal.

I guess that makes us even.

I'm supposed to be such a hot-shit educator and I can't even get a literature maven like Ottava Rima to recognize a lousy attempt at reprising some 18th Century poetry.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[thekohser]

I am aware that Moulton points out the inconsistencies and holes in how Wikipedia works. I am simply not a fan of taking to the low ground to do it. When I get to the point that I think, I don't like how he was treated, but I can understand why they did it and I would do the same" then the experiment fails, in my book. It's all a bit "Please don't poke the bear, it will attack." Let's see what happens if I poke it. Oh, it attacked. So what? I mean, its a bit like big game hunting in London Zoo.

The Wikipedia sign says, "This bear is actually quite docile, and it has been trained to not attack most people who poke it, so if you should decide to poke the bear, please do so with the grain of salt that not all trained bears are perfect on every given day. If you should, on the small chance, be attacked by the bear (either having poked it, or not having poked it), the Zoo is not responsible for the bear's actions, and you most likely deserved to be attacked, whether you actually poked the bear or not."

Moulton (and I, and Jon Awbrey, and Kato, and JohnA, and any of many others) seems to be saying, "Please change your sign. It's misleading and irresponsible, and too many people have been mauled by this bear of yours."

[the fieryangel]

I am aware that Moulton points out the inconsistencies and holes in how Wikipedia works. I am simply not a fan of taking to the low ground to do it. When I get to the point that I think, I don't like how he was treated, but I can understand why they did it and I would do the same" then the experiment fails, in my book. It's all a bit "Please don't poke the bear, it will attack." Let's see what happens if I poke it. Oh, it attacked. So what? I mean, its a bit like big game hunting in London Zoo.

The Wikipedia sign says, "This bear is actually quite docile, and it has been trained to not attack most people who poke it, so if you should decide to poke the bear, please do so with the grain of salt that not all trained bears are perfect on every given day. If you should, on the small chance, be attacked by the bear (either having poked it, or not having poked it), the Zoo is not responsible for the bear's actions, and you most likely deserved to be attacked, whether you actually poked the bear or not."

Moulton (and I, and Jon Awbrey, and Kato, and JohnA, and any of many others) seems to be saying, "Please change your sign. It's misleading and irresponsible, and too many people have been mauled by this bear of yours."

Count me in on that list too!

[dogbiscuit]

I am aware that Moulton points out the inconsistencies and holes in how Wikipedia works. I am simply not a fan of taking to the low ground to do it. When I get to the point that I think, I don't like how he was treated, but I can understand why they did it and I would do the same" then the experiment fails, in my book. It's all a bit "Please don't poke the bear, it will attack." Let's see what happens if I poke it. Oh, it attacked. So what? I mean, its a bit like big game hunting in London Zoo.

The Wikipedia sign says, "This bear is actually quite docile, and it has been trained to not attack most people who poke it, so if you should decide to poke the bear, please do so with the grain of salt that not all trained bears are perfect on every given day. If you should, on the small chance, be attacked by the bear (either having poked it, or not having poked it), the Zoo is not responsible for the bear's actions, and you most likely deserved to be attacked, whether you actually poked the bear or not."

Moulton (and I, and Jon Awbrey, and Kato, and JohnA, and any of many others) seems to be saying, "Please change your sign. It's misleading and irresponsible, and too many people have been mauled by this bear of yours."

Fair comment. I just see this particular effort as on a par with PETA and breast milk. It makes a point, sure; it highlights an issue; but eeeeew! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

What I am uncomfortable with, is given that Dopey Mike has explicitly said that this slightly creepy phrasing (which quote doesn't actually work as the bible seems to be saying "stay ignorant - it's good for you in the long term.") the character Moulton deliberately does not seek to allay any concerns. It's a bit of a silly game for the character Moulton to be made to play. It is in character, goading people into persecuting the Moulton character.

Actually, the passage doesn't say to remain totally ignorant of the concept of Good and Evil. What the passage hints at (but doesn't come out and say in plain math) is that Good and Evil are two extremes of a continuous axis, and that dividing all acts into just those two labels does violence to the mathematical concept of gradations and degrees.

Once again, Moulton, you're deliberately and purposefully using obfuscation, deception, cherry-picking, and largely-meaningless jargon to evade the key issue.

I used to think it was accidental; that he did it because he's outside his area of expertise and isn't good with people. It's become increasingly apparent that it's intentional.

[Rootology]

I used to think it was accidental; that he did it because he's outside his area of expertise and isn't good with people. It's become increasingly apparent that it's intentional.

He does it because when anyone does successfully challenge Moulton, if he ever even begins to concede defeat, his own entire Po-Mo Theater of the Absurd will collapse like a house of cards. When I ran into him on the Wikiversity IRC and called him out on it, after I was unable to get a straight answer, he did absolutely every last thing in his power to avoid providing a straight answer. He did the same thing to Jimmy Wales when Jimmy went into IRC on Wikiversity (those IRC logs that Moulton then published here). Evasion allows Moulton to continue his game, which is all it is now.

It doesn't benefit Wikipedia Review, because as Somey says, this message board is now just being used as a public scoreboard venue for Moulton to still tweak the noses of the people he "lost" to on Wikipedia. If Moulton loses the venue of Wikipedia review, he's essentially out of a game--no one that he wants to have hear his message will just arbitrarily go his dozen websites.

Wikipedia Review, as many are fond of saying about Wikipedia, shouldn't be a giant revenge platform.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

[dogbiscuit]

I used to think it was accidental; that he did it because he's outside his area of expertise and isn't good with people. It's become increasingly apparent that it's intentional.

Remember that Moulton is one of his online characters, who plays the role of a researcher, experimenting. Part of those experiments are carried out on WR as well as Wikipedia. Much as the Moulton character complains that he did not ask to be the foil for Wikipedia's juvenile games, I don't remember signing a consent form for being a part of his games either.

If I sound aggrieved, it is only my current cold-induced crotchetiness. I'm not particularly put out by this little episode; I was more put out by some of his earlier shenanigans which strongly suggested that his blitzing this board was part of a game or experiment - that WR was being used for some personal aim at the expense of the rest of the users. This was not the character that I enjoyed, even though he was a little idiosyncratic. That's why my tolerance levels are low, regardless of the ills visited upon him.

[Moulton]

At least my objectives are posted openly (and have been for over a year).

What were the objectives of M. Baxter, who had considerably more influence than me on this board and on Wikimedia projects?

[Rootology]

At least my objectives are posted openly (and have been for over a year).

What objective? To play with us?

Why are you unwilling to ever debate any of these issues without playing by your own rules? Do you have acute Asperger's Syndrome? I'm asking seriously--you're acting like a textbook Aspie that I know, behaviorally.

What were the objectives of M. Baxter, who had considerably more influence than me on this board and on Wikimedia projects?

Who cares. Are you incapable of not redirecting and evading?

Somey, just ban him if he won't stop playing Wikimuck with all of us.

[Angela Kennedy]

I am aware that Moulton points out the inconsistencies and holes in how Wikipedia works. I am simply not a fan of taking to the low ground to do it. When I get to the point that I think, I don't like how he was treated, but I can understand why they did it and I would do the same" then the experiment fails, in my book. It's all a bit "Please don't poke the bear, it will attack." Let's see what happens if I poke it. Oh, it attacked. So what? I mean, its a bit like big game hunting in London Zoo.

The Wikipedia sign says, "This bear is actually quite docile, and it has been trained to not attack most people who poke it, so if you should decide to poke the bear, please do so with the grain of salt that not all trained bears are perfect on every given day. If you should, on the small chance, be attacked by the bear (either having poked it, or not having poked it), the Zoo is not responsible for the bear's actions, and you most likely deserved to be attacked, whether you actually poked the bear or not."

Moulton (and I, and Jon Awbrey, and Kato, and JohnA, and any of many others) seems to be saying, "Please change your sign. It's misleading and irresponsible, and too many people have been mauled by this bear of yours."

Count me in on that list too!

Me too.

[Jon Awbrey]

Howsabout:

¡¡¡ Beware Of Bear !!!
Or Thou Shalt Surely Die
Much Sooner Than Later

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

At least my objectives are posted openly (and have been for over a year).

What objective? To play with us?

My objectives have been posted for well over a year.

Here they are again, for the mouse-click impaired...

My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

If you wish to learn through the medium of play, I am prepared to employ play-based methods of science education.

Why are you unwilling to ever debate any of these issues without playing by your own rules? Do you have acute Asperger's Syndrome? I'm asking seriously--you're acting like a textbook Aspie that I know, behaviorally.

Rules? What rules? I don't believe in rules (except when playing board games). I believe in functions, because they are more functional than rules.

See Bearing Accurate Witness: Jive Talking and All That Jazz.

What were the objectives of M. Baxter, who had considerably more influence than me on this board and on Wikimedia projects?

Who cares?

Those who were bamboozled by him care.

[Rootology]

At least my objectives are posted openly (and have been for over a year).

What objective? To play with us?

My objectives have been posted for well over a year.

Here they are again, for the mouse-click impaired...

My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

If you wish to learn through the medium of play, I am prepared to employ play-based methods of science education.

You: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Why are you unwilling to ever debate any of these issues without playing by your own rules? Do you have acute Asperger's Syndrome? I'm asking seriously--you're acting like a textbook Aspie that I know, behaviorally.

Rules? What rules? I don't believe in rules (except when playing board games). I believe in functions, because they are more functional than rules.

And we come to the crux of it. You are better than us. You know more than us. You are a special butterfly, floating above the rules and social norms of society, be they Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review, or anything else. Good luck with that worldview. You've just become functionally irrelevant and of little use, and I can't honestly see you ever getting back into Wikipedia, which you clearly so very, very, very badly want.

What were the objectives of M. Baxter, who had considerably more influence than me on this board and on Wikimedia projects?

Who cares?

Those who were bamboozled by him care.

Being that I was one of the most heavily bamboozled, and I no longer care myself, it's a moot point. He's no more relevant or useful to our online societies than you yourself are now. I'm sure someone who is in the Revenge Business will probably slam me for this, but fuck it. You're devolving yourself into a useless joke of what you pretended to be. Good luck with that.

Paging Somey.

[Angela Kennedy]

At least my objectives are posted openly (and have been for over a year).

What objective? To play with us?

Why are you unwilling to ever debate any of these issues without playing by your own rules? Do you have acute Asperger's Syndrome? I'm asking seriously--you're acting like a textbook Aspie that I know, behaviorally.

What were the objectives of M. Baxter, who had considerably more influence than me on this board and on Wikimedia projects?

Who cares. Are you incapable of not redirecting and evading?

Somey, just ban him if he won't stop playing Wikimuck with all of us.

This i something I have a big problem with here on WR. LOADS of you (and probably me too) could be accused of being Aspie or Schizoid (having our own little preoccupations that we go on at lenghty about in language others might not understand). I can't understnad half of the comments being made on here half the time. Why- because I'm stupid? Er- probably not. My last IQ measured 145, I'm an a academic ya-ya-ya. But some of you (especially the WP paramours)- you go on an on about this and that, and you sound odd. And I know that my own field of specialist knowledge is looked down on and I'm seen to 'go on' by some, and seem odd (oh yes- and 'emotional' too- but then I am a woman- and a fighting mother at that!). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/getlost.gif)

So- does this mean we should ALL be banned, because -well why? Cos others like to speculatively psychoanalyse and fancy they know all about our mental statuses (or should that be stati?) and only the sane (as judged by, say, Rootology) can stay? Because loads of people 'play games' by resorting to shameless logical fallacies like the variations of the ad hominem or red herring ('you're a dick' and 'death comments in the bible scared me' drama two recent examples) just to get the last word - so if Moulton is deemed to be 'playing games'- what about the rest of us (or you?) Because some people make statements that mean no sense to others? There'd have to be a mass cull.

And I didn't join WR to play Wikimuck. I find Wikipedia and its ways to be excrutiating and demoralising. I think it needs careful scrutiny from political and academic standpoints because of the ways it impedes, with adverse effects, on the 'realworld'. So perhaps I should be banned too. But i thought WR was for that sort of thing. Was I mistaken?

Either way- whatever my own opinion of Moulton's comments - likely we've all got opinions of others here. Here's a suggestion - Why don't we NOT go to Somey with banning demands?

[Rootology]

The idea of a mass cull of the stupid population wouldn't offend even my delicate liberal sensibilities some days.

The simple points of this entire discussion are 1) Moulton thinks he's better than everyone else--he's not 2) it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in".

It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely.

[Emperor]

I don't move posts into the tar pit. Its pathetic internet wannabes like you who mouth off and fail to contribute who move things to the tar pit. You attacked me, and you are too pathetic to be able to have an accurate retort.

You are pathetic. Go ahead, leave it up, try to make people think that you are some how amazing because you proclaimed such. No one here is your friend. No one here is friends with another. Why? Because you don't know how to treat people properly, let alone understand how systems work.

You are an anonymous idiot, and you think you are clever because you can make some assanine comment? I'm sure everyone is laughing it up, because we all know how amazing you are.

Pathetic? Assanine? Accurate retort?

AWESOME!!!

[Moulton]

And we come to the crux of it. You are better than us. You know more than us. You are a special butterfly, floating above the rules and social norms of society, be they Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review, or anything else. Good luck with that worldview.

Oh come off it. People have been doing mathematics for thousands of years. Archimedes had the Calculus two millenia before Leibniz and Newton. Lagrange and Poincare had the roots of Chaos Theory long before Edward Lorenz came up with his special butterfly function. And Augustine of Hippo had a credible analysis of the failure of rule-based systems well before any mathematicians put his ideas onto a rigorous technical footing. This is hardly graduate level material. It's been in the literature, both with and without mathematical underpinnings, for some 3500 years. You would think that an encyclopedist would know this kind of fundamental material.

[Rootology]

And more nonsense and evasion. Will your own Po Mo Theater end if Somey takes your final tiny stage from you?

[thekohser]

The idea of a mass cull of the stupid population wouldn't offend even my delicate liberal sensibilities some days.

The simple points of this entire discussion are 1) Moulton thinks he's better than everyone else--he's not 2) it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in".

It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely.

Then there's people who just can't let the "simple points" reiterate themselves to the corner of irrelevancy. They have to jump up and down on them, crying about the unfairness of it all. Then they have to really act like an asshole and declare who wants "in" to their club.

Thanks, Root. I wish you could advance yourself to the higher plane of "I'm going to put this person on Ignore before I have an aneurysm", but you seem blinded to that possibility.

[Angela Kennedy]

The idea of a mass cull of the stupid population wouldn't offend even my delicate liberal sensibilities some days.

The simple points of this entire discussion are 1) Moulton thinks he's better than everyone else--he's not 2) it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in".

It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely.

Groan. OK- the 'simple points' are that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK Moulton thinks he's better that everyone else; that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK "it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in"- just because you have an apparent investment in wikipedia: oh yes, and from my point of view, the level of ad hominem attack and other logical fallacies from Wikipedia lovers on their own site and now here is becoming a tidal wave ('arsehole,' dick', what next? nicompoop? I don't think I have the strength...) and has rendered rational debate impossible. Whereas I often don't agree with Moulton, and his cultural references might mystify me or I might be slightly irritated at times - which doesn't make Moulton 'bad' just because MY response might occasionally be so - he's not stooping to ad hominem attack.

All this "It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely." That's a classic wikipedian ad hominem trait as well (and rather Jimbo-ish: I've seen that sort of demand written in a similar way before from him). You're accusing me of being incivil basically, and I think it's to divert attention from WHAT I've said, which REALLY offends you, not the way I've allegedly said it. Calling you on YOUR comments has got your goat, even though it was perfectly reasonable of me to do so, riddled as they were with problems as previously delineated.

This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

And the progress made toward those "objectives" through tagging the hapless wikidrone as "Evil" is....none at all. Especially not the first one.

It would be fair to guess there's a real objective that isn't on this list at all.

[Rootology]

Groan. OK- the 'simple points' are that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK Moulton thinks he's better that everyone else; that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK "it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in"- just because you have an apparent investment in wikipedia: oh yes, and from my point of view, the level of ad hominem attack and other logical fallacies from Wikipedia lovers on their own site and now here is becoming a tidal wave ('arsehole,' dick', what next? nicompoop? I don't think I have the strength...) and has rendered rational debate impossible. Whereas I often don't agree with Moulton, and his cultural references might mystify me or I might be slightly irritated at times - which doesn't make Moulton 'bad' just because MY response might occasionally be so - he's not stooping to ad hominem attack.

All this "It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely." That's a classic wikipedian ad hominem trait as well (and rather Jimbo-ish: I've seen that sort of demand written in a similar way before from him). You're accusing me of being incivil basically, and I think it's to divert attention from WHAT I've said, which REALLY offends you, not the way I've allegedly said it. Calling you on YOUR comments has got your goat, even though it was perfectly reasonable of me to do so, riddled as they were with problems as previously delineated.

There ARE some people that were legitimately driven off of Wikipedia for acting like total unrepentant douchebags, who then turn up here claiming they're going for some noble goal, or that they're the victims of Some Great Wrong That Should Be Made Right, but then still end up basically using Wikipedia Review 95% of the time as the giant revenge platform which they claim that Wikipedia is.

If you've really got that 145 IQ (to go with my 135 IQ, the last time I was tested when I was in high school) please don't ascribe what I said to all users, and please don't put words in my mouth or accuse of me of flinging around ad hominems and logical fallacies or being something that equates to "filthy wiki-insider". I was pushed out of Wikipedia far earlier than many of the people that washed up here, and I *did* ask nicely, expecting nothing, and am back on there. If someone really wants to actually do something, it's possible. It just means putting your penis (or I suppose vagina) back in ones' pants and not insisting on constantly slapping others with it.

Moulton's entire purpose since the Picard article is basically secured against the forces of evil seems to be to see how much he can piss up KillerChihuaha, Filll, OrangeMarlin, Jimbo, and everyone else that had the temerity to treat his Preciousness like a normal person rather than the entitled little shit he thinks he is.

And Greg, no, but no. It's time all the fucking bitchy primadonnas on both side get knocked down a peg. Fuck Moulton's agenda, and sorry, but you're constant needling of Guy is just as childish and immature as the now extremely sporadic needling you get on Wikipedia.

[Neil]

Tar pit?

[Rootology]

Tar pit?

Only if Moulton goes head first.

[Angela Kennedy]

Groan. OK- the 'simple points' are that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK Moulton thinks he's better that everyone else; that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK "it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in"- just because you have an apparent investment in wikipedia: oh yes, and from my point of view, the level of ad hominem attack and other logical fallacies from Wikipedia lovers on their own site and now here is becoming a tidal wave ('arsehole,' dick', what next? nicompoop? I don't think I have the strength...) and has rendered rational debate impossible. Whereas I often don't agree with Moulton, and his cultural references might mystify me or I might be slightly irritated at times - which doesn't make Moulton 'bad' just because MY response might occasionally be so - he's not stooping to ad hominem attack.

All this "It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely." That's a classic wikipedian ad hominem trait as well (and rather Jimbo-ish: I've seen that sort of demand written in a similar way before from him). You're accusing me of being incivil basically, and I think it's to divert attention from WHAT I've said, which REALLY offends you, not the way I've allegedly said it. Calling you on YOUR comments has got your goat, even though it was perfectly reasonable of me to do so, riddled as they were with problems as previously delineated.

There ARE some people that were legitimately driven off of Wikipedia for acting like total unrepentant douchebags, who then turn up here claiming they're going for some noble goal, or that they're the victims of Some Great Wrong That Should Be Made Right, but then still end up basically using Wikipedia Review 95% of the time as the giant revenge platform which they claim that Wikipedia is.

If you've really got that 145 IQ (to go with my 135 IQ, the last time I was tested when I was in high school) please don't ascribe what I said to all users, and please don't put words in my mouth or accuse of me of flinging around ad hominems and logical fallacies or being something that equates to "filthy wiki-insider". I was pushed out of Wikipedia far earlier than many of the people that washed up here, and I *did* ask nicely, expecting nothing, and am back on there. If someone really wants to actually do something, it's possible. It just means putting your penis (or I suppose vagina) back in ones' pants and not insisting on constantly slapping others with it.

Moulton's entire purpose since the Picard article is basically secured against the forces of evil seems to be to see how much he can piss up KillerChihuaha, Filll, OrangeMarlin, Jimbo, and everyone else that had the temerity to treat his Preciousness like a normal person rather than the entitled little shit he thinks he is.

And Greg, no, but no. It's time all the fucking bitchy primadonnas on both side get knocked down a peg. Fuck Moulton's agenda, and sorry, but you're constant needling of Guy is just as childish and immature as the now extremely sporadic needling you get on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry Rootology- what on earth are you talking about? Penises and Vaginas escaping pants and slapping people? (How does a vagina actually DO that?) Little shits? Douchebags? I've put words in your mouth? Primadonnas? This is sounding more and more like a rant and therefore cannot be taken seriously. You STILL haven't successfully argued anything - all we can ascertain is you don't like Moulton.

But you do write like someone who has an investment in Wikipedia (personal, emotional, intellecutal- I don't know). It's not ad hominem for that to be pointed out, as it DOES affect how this whole 'argument' is being constructed. Some of us DON'T have that investment- it makes our terms of reference somewhat different to yours, and the large amount of others with similar investments who seem to have turned up- so of course it's going to be commented upon.

I was looking for evidence about Moulton's behaviour that warranted all this reaction (I'm not Moulton's groupie thank you very much- no offence Moulton)- and THIS is has been the most elusive thing- again, extended disco versions of how bad he is- can't find the actual reasons- apart from personal dislike of his style of writing. Now this whole 'debate' is probably going into the tarpit because- I dunno- the liberal use of obscenity in place of rationally set out premise?

[Neil]

Tar pit?

Only if Moulton goes head first.

Rooty, I like you normally, but you may want read your own signature and go for a walk or something; you are abnormally flustered.

[Moulton]

My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

And the progress made toward those "objectives" through tagging the hapless wikidrone as "Evil" is....none at all. Especially not the first one.

It would be fair to guess there's a real objective that isn't on this list at all.

I do have other goals, outside of the scope of Wikipedia (but not outside the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation Mission Statement).

Here is my own Vision and Mission Statement from the Orenda Project:

The Orenda Project

Vision Statement
We envision a wholesome world in which everyone can enjoy the fruits of world peace, prosperity, lifelong learning, spiritual growth, physical health and emotional well-being, satisfying roles and careers, and meaningful participation in the joy of creative living.

Mission Statement
To play a leadership role in guiding the advance of civilization through creative innovation, life-affirming applications of technology, and the wise and responsible use of scientific knowledge. To play a nurturing role in educating and empowering people to realize their full potential to participate cooperatively, creatively, innovatively, effectively, productively and rewardingly in achieving the common goals embodied in the Vision Statement.

"Orenda" is an Iroquois word. It means "Tribal Soul on the Right Path."

[Somey]

The Moulton Project

Vision Statement
Blah blah blah blah blah, in which blah blah blah blah the fruits of blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah and more blah blah, blah, blah and meaningful blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, and of course blah blah blah.

Mission Statement
To play a leadership role in blah blah blah through blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, and most importantly blah blah blah blah blah. To play a nurturing role in blah blah blah to realize blah blah blah blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, and blah blah in achieving the common blah blah blah embodied in the Blah Blah Blah Statement.

"Blah" is a Universal word. It means "Blah blah blah blah blah."

[Neil]

The Moulton Project

Vision Statement
Blah blah blah blah blah, in which blah blah blah blah the fruits of blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah and more blah blah, blah, blah and meaningful blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, and of course blah blah blah.

Mission Statement
To play a leadership role in blah blah blah through blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, and most importantly blah blah blah blah blah. To play a nurturing role in blah blah blah to realize blah blah blah blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, and blah blah in achieving the common blah blah blah embodied in the Blah Blah Blah Statement.

"Blah" is a Universal word. It means "Blah blah blah blah blah."

Is mocking Moulton more or less childish than blocking him? Discuss.

[Somey]

Is mocking Moulton more or less childish than blocking him?

More, and certainly more visible in the short term as well, but we also have to make it clear that we're not letting Moulton continue to post here because we actually take him seriously, or subscribe to any of his quasi-academic notions of how online communities should operate.

I mean, I could have just said that outright, but I've always found that direct statements are a bit less effective than sarcasm.

[mikeu]

Groan. OK- the 'simple points' are that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK Moulton thinks he's better that everyone else; that you and a few other wikipedia lovers THINK "it's clear that some people simply are railing here a year or more after they were booted from WP that really just want to get back "in"- just because you have an apparent investment in wikipedia: oh yes, and from my point of view, the level of ad hominem attack and other logical fallacies from Wikipedia lovers on their own site and now here is becoming a tidal wave ('arsehole,' dick', what next? nicompoop? I don't think I have the strength...) and has rendered rational debate impossible. Whereas I often don't agree with Moulton, and his cultural references might mystify me or I might be slightly irritated at times - which doesn't make Moulton 'bad' just because MY response might occasionally be so - he's not stooping to ad hominem attack.

All this "It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole, and just ask nicely and sincerely." That's a classic wikipedian ad hominem trait as well (and rather Jimbo-ish: I've seen that sort of demand written in a similar way before from him). You're accusing me of being incivil basically, and I think it's to divert attention from WHAT I've said, which REALLY offends you, not the way I've allegedly said it. Calling you on YOUR comments has got your goat, even though it was perfectly reasonable of me to do so, riddled as they were with problems as previously delineated.

I apologize for the ad hominem attacks that I've made.

-mikeu

[Moulton]

Inherit the Windmills

When it comes to quixotic quests, perhaps none is more intractable than nudging a hopelessly dysfunctional system in the Bokononic direction of enlightenment.

A year ago, Dave Souza had reminded me of Augustine, who is notable for having introduced the term "Original Sin" into the conversation. Of course, being a systems scientist rather than a theologian, I'm more inclined to analyze ''systemic errors'' rather than reckon anything as mortifying as "Original Sin." Still, it occurred to me that Augustine might have been on to something, so I took a closer look at what he was blathering on about with all of that godspeak.

Turns out a few of those pioneering oligarchs (e.g. Solon and Hammurabi, among others) had introduced a tragic logic error into their calculus. Rather than call it "Original Sin," I'd rather call it "Hammurabi's Original Logic Error" or "Humankind's Original Logic Error." Either way, the acronym comes out HOLE, so that one can smile and say that those who embrace their flawed paradigm have a HOLE in their head.

But I digress. It's difficult to do peer-reviewed original research in the field of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology, so one is obliged to follow the lead of Umberto Eco. Eco said, "Whereof we cannot make a theory, we must tell a story instead." And I say, even if we ''can'' make a theory, we damn well better present it as a story anyway, since theory tends to make most people's eyes glaze over. Alas, I suck at storycraft, which is why I like to hang out around journalists. Mebbe some of their gift will rub off on me someday.

Meanwhile, I struggle with a compromise somewhere between scientific essay writing and amateurish comic opera. I figure it can only get better, cuz it can't get much worse.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down

Midi: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Barsoom Tork is my name, and I rode on the paintball train,
Til so much rivalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the fall of skandalon, we were rollin, just trollin for bait.
I took the train to Wiki, that hell, it was a time I remember, oh so well.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

Back with SBJ at Epiphany, and one day he said to me,
"Moulton, quick, come see, a-there goes Guillaume on a spree!"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if Jimbo's no good.
Just take what ya need and efface the rest,
But they should never have wiped out the very best.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

Like my father before me, I'm a working man,
And like Awbrey before me, I took a rebel stand.
Well, he was just pissed off, proud and brave,
But the God-King laid him in his grave,
I swear by the verse below my feet,
You can't raise the Torkel back up when it's in defeat.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

CopyClef 2007-2008 Joan Baez and Barsoom Tork Associates.

Moulton 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[Sxeptomaniac]

I was looking for evidence about Moulton's behaviour that warranted all this reaction (I'm not Moulton's groupie thank you very much- no offence Moulton)- and THIS is has been the most elusive thing- again, extended disco versions of how bad he is- can't find the actual reasons- apart from personal dislike of his style of writing. Now this whole 'debate' is probably going into the tarpit because- I dunno- the liberal use of obscenity in place of rationally set out premise?

Well, I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

[Moulton]

I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

H1: Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Please support the above thesis, H1, with solid evidence, sound reasoning, and coherent analysis, and then kindly submit it to scholarly peer review in accordance with the protocols of Scholarly Ethics.

What experiments have you done (or propose to do) to falsify H1, in accordance with the protocols of the Scientific Method of Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing?

[Sxeptomaniac]

I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

H1: Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Please support the above thesis, H1, with solid evidence, sound reasoning, and coherent analysis, and then kindly submit it to scholarly peer review in accordance with the protocols of Scholarly Ethics.

What experiments have you done (or propose to do) to falsify H1, in accordance with the protocols of the Scientific Method of Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing?

I was expecting you to post the same old nonsense. I've adjusted my "thesis" regarding you in the past, and will do so again if you prove me wrong. However, you're not going to do that by making increasingly lame excuses for your behavior. Come on, that article doesn't describe anything remotely close to what you're doing.

[Moulton]

I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

H1: Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Please support the above thesis, H1, with solid evidence, sound reasoning, and coherent analysis, and then kindly submit it to scholarly peer review in accordance with the protocols of Scholarly Ethics.

What experiments have you done (or propose to do) to falsify H1, in accordance with the protocols of the Scientific Method of Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing?

I was expecting you to post the same old nonsense. I've adjusted my "thesis" regarding you in the past, and will do so again if you prove me wrong. However, you're not going to do that by making increasingly lame excuses for your behavior. Come on, that article doesn't describe anything remotely close to what you're doing.

Science doesn't work that way, Sxeptomaniac. Your name implies skepticism. In science, one treats every thesis with healthy skepticism — especially one's own pet theories. And then a diligent and conscientious scientist tries like the devil to disprove his hypothesis. What experiments have you done, per the protocols of the scientific method, to falsify your thesis?

Without that exercise, Sxeptomaniac, your thesis sinks like a millstone for lack of evidence, analysis, and reasoning.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Moulton]

I apologize for the ad hominem attacks that I've made.

-mikeu

I accept your apology, Mike.

But please note that binding, gagging, kicking, and locking someone up in the janitorial hall closet is also an ad hominem (or is it ad avatarum?) attack.

Have you decided yet to stand down from your hostile actions against me?

Specifically, have you decided yet to stand down from this action (on my Wikiversity talk page) rather than respond to questions about it:

Note: Personal information including names and email addresses has been posted to this page. Those edits, and a few after it, have been removed (oversighted) from the edit history. The page will remain protected for one day while we review these issues. --mikeu talk 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

More than one day has elapsed. Where is the review, Mike?

I urge you, for your own emotional well-being, Mike, to eschew and discontinue the sociopathic practice of engaging in non-consensual acts of bondage, discipline, kicking, and gagging of authentic scholars affiliated with well-established institutions of higher learning. I do not appreciate being treated as if I were one of Jimbo's Bomis Boyz™ fetish objects.

[Angela Kennedy]

I was looking for evidence about Moulton's behaviour that warranted all this reaction (I'm not Moulton's groupie thank you very much- no offence Moulton)- and THIS is has been the most elusive thing- again, extended disco versions of how bad he is- can't find the actual reasons- apart from personal dislike of his style of writing. Now this whole 'debate' is probably going into the tarpit because- I dunno- the liberal use of obscenity in place of rationally set out premise?

Well, I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Well even what you've said here is remarkably vague. I dunno- maybe if, like me (and it appears, Moulton in the past), you've had all sorts of **** slung at you (false accusations to the point of defamation which can ruin you in the real world, misrepresenting your position - with the same possible effect, locking out, deliberate gerrymandering, the odd veiled obscenity, ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ) on wikipedia - AND IT'S BEEN DEEMED PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR by 'the community' - you can't help wondering what terrible things Moulton has been doing to generate the responses he has (as the bar has apparently been set so high!)

But evidence of these heinous wrongdoings are still not forthcoming.

Which leads me to believe that we're dealing with a case of the same old same old at Wikipedia (whether it's WV or whatever) - power games, preciousness, a MASSIVE difficulty in sustaining rational debate and a tendency to resort to logical fallacy (a common problem with all discourses maybe- but one which appears to have become magnified on Wikipedia due probably to the influence of certain key people and their ways- it seems to have become part of the culture there).

I cannot understand why Moulton would even want to continue engaging with WP in any of its forms, frankly. But he does, it appears, like many of you. He seems to think Wikipedia can be 'fixed'. I would completely disagree, and could write my own thesis on why (as could a number of us on here, I suspect.) It looks increasingly that Moulton irritates people by his trains of thought and style of writing- but THIS IS NOT WRONGDOING per se, and could apply to many of us.

I remain sceptical as to the extent of his 'wrongdoings' because the bar for 'bad' behaviour remains so high on Wikipedia. Unless Moulton is engaging in misrepresenting others's arguments, engaging in various other ad hominem fallacies against people, defaming, calling people names, inciting others to attack people or gang up to suppress their contribution, deliberate gerrymandering, using the system to gain power over others, the case against him looks weak.







This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy:

[Moulton]

If you meet the Buddha in Cyberspace, off him.

There isn't any case against me, just as there was no case against Socrates, Archimedes, Jesus, Becket, Galileo, Darwin, Lavoisier, Galois, Thoreau, Gandhi, or King.

Given how easy it was for the community of the day to take down those luminaries (who made profoundly substantive contributions to the advance of civilization), is there any mystery about how easy it is for 21st century cyberspace characters in animal costumes to repeat the same hoary old script in the banal constructed realities of the Internet?

Of course they are gonna take me down any way they can. Why wouldn't they? It's the oldest script in the annals of human history. Just ask Rene Girard, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, or Salman Rushdie.

It's just a banal reprise of the script of the Passion Play, a drama that reruns endlessly down through the ages.

Scapegoat dramas date back some 4000 years, and arise primarily because of a systemic flaw in the architecture of civilization itself — a flaw introduced when humans first began to plant crops and herd cattle and sheep some 10,000 years ago. The organizational flaw has long been recognized and remarked about. The oldest remark about it that I know of is found in Genesis 2:17 (although that early diagnosis understandably fails to suggest a better remedial practice).

Today, we have better insights into the solution to the original flaw in the architecture of human culture, but there is still no known way to explain it to the public, because it requires a college level education in mathematics to appreciate it.

And we all know how much math teachers are reviled.

When I was a grad student at Stanford, one of the math teachers there was murdered by a failing student.

It was a shocking occurence, but it reminded me that it is customary in human culture to murder our best teachers.

I'm hardly the best science educator on the net. I'm well-known for being hopelessly inept at promoting science in cyberspace.

All the more reason for them to wipe out Moulton the Schmeggegy Scientist.

So why not? Cats have nine lives, but Caprice has way more than that.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I was looking for evidence about Moulton's behaviour that warranted all this reaction (I'm not Moulton's groupie thank you very much- no offence Moulton)- and THIS is has been the most elusive thing- again, extended disco versions of how bad he is- can't find the actual reasons- apart from personal dislike of his style of writing. Now this whole 'debate' is probably going into the tarpit because- I dunno- the liberal use of obscenity in place of rationally set out premise?

Well, I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Well even what you've said here is remarkably vague. I dunno- maybe if, like me (and it appears, Moulton in the past), you've had all sorts of **** slung at you (false accusations to the point of defamation which can ruin you in the real world, misrepresenting your position - with the same possible effect, locking out, deliberate gerrymandering, the odd veiled obscenity, ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ) on wikipedia - AND IT'S BEEN DEEMED PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR by 'the community' - you can't help wondering what terrible things Moulton has been doing to generate the responses he has (as the bar has apparently been set so high!)

But evidence of these heinous wrongdoings are still not forthcoming.

Which leads me to believe that we're dealing with a case of the same old same old at Wikipedia (whether it's WV or whatever) - power games, preciousness, a MASSIVE difficulty in sustaining rational debate and a tendency to resort to logical fallacy (a common problem with all discourses maybe- but one which appears to have become magnified on Wikipedia due probably to the influence of certain key people and their ways- it seems to have become part of the culture there).

I cannot understand why Moulton would even want to continue engaging with WP in any of its forms, frankly. But he does, it appears, like many of you. He seems to think Wikipedia can be 'fixed'. I would completely disagree, and could write my own thesis on why (as could a number of us on here, I suspect.) It looks increasingly that Moulton irritates people by his trains of thought and style of writing- but THIS IS NOT WRONGDOING per se, and could apply to many of us.

I remain sceptical as to the extent of his 'wrongdoings' because the bar for 'bad' behaviour remains so high on Wikipedia. Unless Moulton is engaging in misrepresenting others's arguments, engaging in various other ad hominem fallacies against people, defaming, calling people names, inciting others to attack people or gang up to suppress their contribution, deliberate gerrymandering, using the system to gain power over others, the case against him looks weak.

I'm a little confused as to what you're accusing me of. You seem to be conflating Moulton's problems at WP with his at WV. I know I'm not the only one that felt he was treated unfairly during his original experience on WP, but condemn his behavior on WV.

Look, I'm not interested in power games. I just work on a few projects now and then because it interests me. All I want is for people not to make that more difficult than necessary, and will support the ability for others to do the same (within reason). I tried to help Moulton before he was even blocked the first time on WP. As a result of opposing those editors and associating with Moulton, I've been attacked and lied about.

I attempted to help him on WP, but that doesn't mean I was going to unconditionally support him in his attempt to turn the WV Ethics project into a platform for a feud. Take, for example, his supposed "case study", in which he argues his case, complete with a hyperbolic reference to Kristalnacht. That's not what case studies are for. I agreed that it should be removed as inappropriate for the project, and gave specific criteria for what a case study would need to look like when Moulton complained. However, Moulton continued to complain about my removal without giving a single reason why it should be considered a case study after all.

Perhaps you'd like a couple of examples of how Moulton played power games himself? It seems he was perfectly fine with shutting down discussion through rude behavior and sheer verbosity.

[Moulton]

I was looking for evidence about Moulton's behaviour that warranted all this reaction (I'm not Moulton's groupie thank you very much- no offence Moulton)- and THIS is has been the most elusive thing- again, extended disco versions of how bad he is- can't find the actual reasons- apart from personal dislike of his style of writing. Now this whole 'debate' is probably going into the tarpit because- I dunno- the liberal use of obscenity in place of rationally set out premise?

Well, I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Well even what you've said here is remarkably vague. I dunno- maybe if, like me (and it appears, Moulton in the past), you've had all sorts of **** slung at you (false accusations to the point of defamation which can ruin you in the real world, misrepresenting your position - with the same possible effect, locking out, deliberate gerrymandering, the odd veiled obscenity, ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ) on wikipedia - AND IT'S BEEN DEEMED PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR by 'the community' - you can't help wondering what terrible things Moulton has been doing to generate the responses he has (as the bar has apparently been set so high!)

But evidence of these heinous wrongdoings are still not forthcoming.

Which leads me to believe that we're dealing with a case of the same old same old at Wikipedia (whether it's WV or whatever) - power games, preciousness, a MASSIVE difficulty in sustaining rational debate and a tendency to resort to logical fallacy (a common problem with all discourses maybe- but one which appears to have become magnified on Wikipedia due probably to the influence of certain key people and their ways- it seems to have become part of the culture there).

I cannot understand why Moulton would even want to continue engaging with WP in any of its forms, frankly. But he does, it appears, like many of you. He seems to think Wikipedia can be 'fixed'. I would completely disagree, and could write my own thesis on why (as could a number of us on here, I suspect.) It looks increasingly that Moulton irritates people by his trains of thought and style of writing- but THIS IS NOT WRONGDOING per se, and could apply to many of us.

I remain sceptical as to the extent of his 'wrongdoings' because the bar for 'bad' behaviour remains so high on Wikipedia. Unless Moulton is engaging in misrepresenting others's arguments, engaging in various other ad hominem fallacies against people, defaming, calling people names, inciting others to attack people or gang up to suppress their contribution, deliberate gerrymandering, using the system to gain power over others, the case against him looks weak.

I'm a little confused as to what you're accusing me of. You seem to be conflating Moulton's problems at WP with his at WV. I know I'm not the only one that felt he was treated unfairly during his original experience on WP, but condemn his behavior on WV.

Look, I'm not interested in power games. I just work on a few projects now and then because it interests me. All I want is for people not to make that more difficult than necessary, and will support the ability for others to do the same (within reason). I tried to help Moulton before he was even blocked the first time on WP. As a result of opposing those editors and associating with Moulton, I've been attacked and lied about.

I attempted to help him on WP, but that doesn't mean I was going to unconditionally support him in his attempt to turn the WV Ethics project into a platform for a feud. Take, for example, his supposed "case study", in which he argues his case, complete with a hyperbolic reference to Kristalnacht. That's not what case studies are for. I agreed that it should be removed as inappropriate for the project, and gave specific criteria for what a case study would need to look like when Moulton complained. However, Moulton continued to complain about my removal without giving a single reason why it should be considered a case study after all.

Perhaps you'd like a couple of examples of how Moulton played power games himself? It seems he was perfectly fine with shutting down discussion through rude behavior and sheer verbosity.

It's not about helping me. It's about fixing the system that chews people up and spits them out. Such systems are hardly unique. They are ubiquitous in human culture.

What's interesting about cyberspace cultures (especially Wikis) is that there is a fairly complete historical record that can be studied to diagnose what is going haywire. What annoys me is when someone (who may well be haywire themselves) comes along and "frags" the study or oversights crucial portions of it.

When it comes to power, there is but one kind of power I recognize, and that is the power of knowledge. Knowledge is free for the taking by anyone and everyone. It warms the cockles of my heart when people acquire authentic knowledge, well-grounded in the scientific method of knowledge construction. It disturbs me when people seek political power (over the affairs of others) whilst in a state of obliviousness, mistrust, apprehension, anxiety, and antipathy. I challenged the editors of IDCab precisely because they sought to exercise political power whilst propagating trivially disprovable falsehoods about a hundred scientists, academics, and researchers. So they sought to bind, gag, marginalize, silence, and block me. What else is new? That kind of shenanigans has been going on since the dawn of recorded history. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

What fascinates me is the unsolved problem of introducing ethical practices into human culture. Aesop tried to do that with his simple fables. Moses tried to do that with his Ten Commandments. Hillel and Jesus tried to do that with their innovative teaching methods. Fyodor Dostoevsky, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, and CS Lewis tried to do with their novels. I'm engaging with online cultures to see whether there is a shred of hope for humankind on the Ethics Frontier.

Today at MIT, Dan Ariely gave a talk. Much of it was about his research on cheating. It was a long talk and he covered a lot of ground, but one disturbing conclusion emerged at the end. According to Dan, there is a fraction of the population who are unethical to the point of sociopathy, and there is no known practice for redeeming them. And yet they consistently rise to positions of power and influence in our culture.

[Proabivouac]

"Orenda" is an Iroquois word. It means "Tribal Soul on the Right Path."

There is something very fishy about this purported translation.

[Moulton]

"Orenda" is an Iroquois word. It means "Tribal Soul on the Right Path."

There is something very fishy about this purported translation.

Please see this website, which has adopted both the name and the philosophy of Orenda. That's the origin of the interpretation I have long used for the Orenda Project.

[Angela Kennedy]

I'm a little confused as to what you're accusing me of. You seem to be conflating Moulton's problems at WP with his at WV. I know I'm not the only one that felt he was treated unfairly during his original experience on WP, but condemn his behavior on WV.

Look, I'm not interested in power games. I just work on a few projects now and then because it interests me. All I want is for people not to make that more difficult than necessary, and will support the ability for others to do the same (within reason). I tried to help Moulton before he was even blocked the first time on WP. As a result of opposing those editors and associating with Moulton, I've been attacked and lied about.

I attempted to help him on WP, but that doesn't mean I was going to unconditionally support him in his attempt to turn the WV Ethics project into a platform for a feud. Take, for example, his supposed "case study", in which he argues his case, complete with a hyperbolic reference to Kristalnacht. That's not what case studies are for. I agreed that it should be removed as inappropriate for the project, and gave specific criteria for what a case study would need to look like when Moulton complained. However, Moulton continued to complain about my removal without giving a single reason why it should be considered a case study after all.

Perhaps you'd like a couple of examples of how Moulton played power games himself? It seems he was perfectly fine with shutting down discussion through rude behavior and sheer verbosity.

Whoa there! I haven't accused YOU of anything. I've said why the WHOLE case against Moulton looks weak. You've provided rambling diffs it would take me far too long to read- what are the actual EXAMPLES of ad hominem, 'lies', using power abusviely etc. I referred to in my earlier post?

Verbosity and hyperbole cannot form part of this case of wrongdoing- as I said before, there'd have to be a mass cull if this was the case (and you and I would be in the queue to get offed- as well as most of WR, WP and Guardian Journalists, to name just a few).

Moulton- please don't think I'm sitting in judgement of you either- I don't like how this is turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt against you frankly.

And just to be clear- I AM talking about the sitch at WV- which is part of the WMF, is it not? There's a whole new potential thread that could be formed on whether a Jim Wales venture (even an ostensible 'academic' one) is going to run into the same problems as WP per se in terms of culture and power games in the production of knowledge- a ubiquitous problem, yes: but as we have seen before, Wikipedia projects have specific problems in these areas.

This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy:

[Moulton]

Unkenschnupfen

I'm a little confused as to what you're accusing me of. You seem to be conflating Moulton's problems at WP with his at WV. I know I'm not the only one that felt he was treated unfairly during his original experience on WP, but condemn his behavior on WV.

Look, I'm not interested in power games. I just work on a few projects now and then because it interests me. All I want is for people not to make that more difficult than necessary, and will support the ability for others to do the same (within reason). I tried to help Moulton before he was even blocked the first time on WP. As a result of opposing those editors and associating with Moulton, I've been attacked and lied about.

I attempted to help him on WP, but that doesn't mean I was going to unconditionally support him in his attempt to turn the WV Ethics project into a platform for a feud. Take, for example, his supposed "case study", in which he argues his case, complete with a hyperbolic reference to Kristalnacht. That's not what case studies are for. I agreed that it should be removed as inappropriate for the project, and gave specific criteria for what a case study would need to look like when Moulton complained. However, Moulton continued to complain about my removal without giving a single reason why it should be considered a case study after all.

Perhaps you'd like a couple of examples of how Moulton played power games himself? It seems he was perfectly fine with shutting down discussion through rude behavior and sheer verbosity.

Whoa there! I haven't accused YOU of anything. I've said why the WHOLE case against Moulton looks weak. You've provided rambling diffs it would take me far too long to read- what are the actual EXAMPLES of ad hominem, 'lies', using power abusviely etc. I referred to in my earlier post?

Verbosity and hyperbole cannot form part of this case of wrongdoing- as I said before, there'd have to be a mass cull if this was the case (and you and I would be in the queue to get offed- as well as most of WR, WP and Guardian Journalists, to name just a few).

Moulton- please don't think I'm sitting in judgement of you either- I don't like how this is turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt against you frankly.

And just to be clear- I AM talking about the sitch at WV- which is part of the WMF, is it not? There's a whole new potential thread that could be formed on whether a Jim Wales venture (even an ostensible 'academic' one) is going to run into the same problems as WP per se in terms of culture and power games in the production of knowledge- a ubiquitous problem, yes: but as we have seen before, Wikipedia projects have specific problems in these areas.

Over on Wikiversity, JWSchmidt has likened the rantings of others there to a McCarthy era "red scare" — which had also been compared to the "witch hunts" of American Colonial History.

Since I've lived in Boston for the past 20 years, I've been to the historic sites in Salem where the Witch Trials took place. Their significance in American history is not lost on me. And while I was only a youth when Senator Joseph McCarthy was on his anti-communist tirade in the 1950s, the lessons of that shameful passage in American History are still fresh in my mind.

On Wikiversity, I've called for a scholarly peer review of the unseemly management practices introduced there by Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales, in contravention of fundamental principles of an academic culture.

Perhaps the practice of blocking good faith editors on Wikipedia is too deeply entrenched in the culture there to question the propriety of that bizarre regulatory practice, but Wikiversity is a different matter and a different culture.

To my mind, it is sophomorish and tacky to be binding, gagging, kicking, and locking up academic faculty and visiting scholars in the janitorial hall closet whilst skipping out on the authentic educational lessons at hand.

I urge people to take a closer look at Wikiversity, because I believe it exposes the seamy underbelly and Achilles heel of the Bomis Boyzâ„¢ B&D Culture that Jimbo built.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Whoa there! I haven't accused YOU of anything. I've said why the WHOLE case against Moulton looks weak. You've provided rambling diffs it would take me far too long to read- what are the actual EXAMPLES of ad hominem, 'lies', using power abusviely etc. I referred to in my earlier post?

Verbosity and hyperbole cannot form part of this case of wrongdoing- as I said before, there'd have to be a mass cull if this was the case (and you and I would be in the queue to get offed- as well as most of WR, WP and Guardian Journalists, to name just a few).

Moulton- please don't think I'm sitting in judgement of you either- I don't like how this is turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt against you frankly.

And just to be clear- I AM talking about the sitch at WV- which is part of the WMF, is it not? There's a whole new potential thread that could be formed on whether a Jim Wales venture (even an ostensible 'academic' one) is going to run into the same problems as WP per se in terms of culture and power games in the production of knowledge- a ubiquitous problem, yes: but as we have seen before, Wikipedia projects have specific problems in these areas.

Yeah the diffs are long long and rambling. That's exactly why I wasn't thrilled about digging through things. You're requesting evidence of behavior that has little to do with why Moulton was blocked from WV, despite Jimbo's misleading "incivility" reason when the block was placed. Moulton did attack editors a few times using real names, but most of those were oversighted, so I can't link to them. However, those were really more of the straws that broke the camel's back, rather than the sum total of the reason for the block.

You and I apparently have different ideas about what constitutes problem behavior. You list a few specific behaviors, while I've given a principle. Moulton was abusing the project for his own purposes, and refused to moderate his rather obnoxious behavior. That's why he was blocked. Centaur of Attention was blocked for pretty much the same reasons.

[Random832]

You and I apparently have different ideas about what constitutes problem behavior. You list a few specific behaviors,

Her contention seems to be that while others get away with things that are worse, nobody should be blocked for such "lesser" offenses as Moulton.

[Somey]

I should probably state that while I agree with Sxeptomaniac's position, as well as Rootology's, about Moulton's recent behavior, there are a few things that aren't being stated here, and they really should be.

The main one is that, quite simply, "Wikiversity" is a terrible idea that should never even have been conceived of in the first place. It's a far, far worse idea than Wikipedia; everything about it is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'd also like to point out that I recognized this almost immediately, even going so far as to parody it, and nothing I've seen since has given me the slightest reason to think I was wrong in my initial assumptions.

In addition, most of the "sub-projects" of the WMF, such as Wikiversity, are much less populated with dedicated/committed editors than Wikipedia. The number of WV admins is what, 20 or so? It's much easier for someone with energy, determination, and lots of time on their hands to dominate a smaller site, particularly since MediaWiki gives admins so few effective tools to deal with people who do those kinds of things. As I've stated many times, even relatively low-tech boardware like the system we use here on WR has vastly greater capability for protecting itself against people like Moulton than any MediaWiki-based site has. It isn't even close! What all this ultimately means, IMO, is that the people running Wikiversity are likely to be incredibly frustrated when presented with the sort of personal and logistical challenge that Moulton represents.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Moulton's activities on Wikiversity may actually be the sort of "necessary evil" that's required to (eventually?) help turn Wikiversity into the ghost-town it deserves to be, but that's obviously hard cheese on the people who participate there in "good faith" - many of whom are the sort of decent, well-meaning, perhaps-even-altruistic folks that make up roughly half of the Wikipedia community. But (in case you wanted more cliches) if Wikipedia is trying to make stone soup, Wikiversity is trying to make a silk purse out of a really ugly sow's ear.

That doesn't mean Moulton has to come to WR and broadcast a play-by-play of everything he's doing to make those peoples' online lives miserable, though. That's the part I really object to, in case I hadn't made that clear enough from the outset.

[Moulton]

Whoa there! I haven't accused YOU of anything. I've said why the WHOLE case against Moulton looks weak. You've provided rambling diffs it would take me far too long to read- what are the actual EXAMPLES of ad hominem, 'lies', using power abusviely etc. I referred to in my earlier post?

Verbosity and hyperbole cannot form part of this case of wrongdoing- as I said before, there'd have to be a mass cull if this was the case (and you and I would be in the queue to get offed- as well as most of WR, WP and Guardian Journalists, to name just a few).

Moulton- please don't think I'm sitting in judgement of you either- I don't like how this is turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt against you frankly.

And just to be clear- I AM talking about the sitch at WV- which is part of the WMF, is it not? There's a whole new potential thread that could be formed on whether a Jim Wales venture (even an ostensible 'academic' one) is going to run into the same problems as WP per se in terms of culture and power games in the production of knowledge- a ubiquitous problem, yes: but as we have seen before, Wikipedia projects have specific problems in these areas.

Yeah the diffs are long long and rambling. That's exactly why I wasn't thrilled about digging through things. You're requesting evidence of behavior that has little to do with why Moulton was blocked from WV, despite Jimbo's misleading "incivility" reason when the block was placed.

Do you then agree that Jimbo's charge of "incivility" was bogus?

Moulton did attack editors a few times using real names, but most of those were oversighted, so I can't link to them. However, those were really more of the straws that broke the camel's back, rather than the sum total of the reason for the block.

I did refer to KillerChihuahua by her real name. How is that an attack? I called upon her to abide by the protocols of scholarly ethics when editing within the Ethics Project. Reminding a new editor at Wikiversity of the applicable protocols for scholarly studies is hardly an attack.

You and I apparently have different ideas about what constitutes problem behavior. You list a few specific behaviors, while I've given a principle. Moulton was abusing the project for his own purposes, and refused to moderate his rather obnoxious behavior. That's why he was blocked. Centaur of Attention was blocked for pretty much the same reasons.

The purpose of the project was to introduce the principles of ethical reasoning, and to demonstrate the application of ethical reasoning to authentic ethical conundrums as they arise from time to time in WMF-sponsored projects.

Do you consider the construction of educational resources related to Media Ethics, and constructing innovative solutions to real-time ethical conundrums to be "obnoxious behavior"?

[Sxeptomaniac]

I should probably state that while I agree with Sxeptomaniac's position, as well as Rootology's, about Moulton's recent behavior, there are a few things that aren't being stated here, and they really should be.

The main one is that, quite simply, "Wikiversity" is a terrible idea that should never even have been conceived of in the first place. It's a far, far worse idea than Wikipedia; everything about it is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'd also like to point out that I recognized this almost immediately, even going so far as to parody it, and nothing I've seen since has given me the slightest reason to think I was wrong in my initial assumptions.

In addition, most of the "sub-projects" of the WMF, such as Wikiversity, are much less populated with dedicated/committed editors than Wikipedia. The number of WV admins is what, 20 or so? It's much easier for someone with energy, determination, and lots of time on their hands to dominate a smaller site, particularly since MediaWiki gives admins so few effective tools to deal with people who do those kinds of things. As I've stated many times, even relatively low-tech boardware like the system we use here on WR has vastly greater capability for protecting itself against people like Moulton than any MediaWiki-based site has. It isn't even close! What all this ultimately means, IMO, is that the people running Wikiversity are likely to be incredibly frustrated when presented with the sort of personal and logistical challenge that Moulton represents.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Moulton's activities on Wikiversity may actually be the sort of "necessary evil" that's required to (eventually?) help turn Wikiversity into the ghost-town it deserves to be, but that's obviously hard cheese on the people who participate there in "good faith" - many of whom are the sort of decent, well-meaning, perhaps-even-altruistic folks that make up roughly half of the Wikipedia community. But (in case you wanted more cliches) if Wikipedia is trying to make stone soup, Wikiversity is trying to make a silk purse out of a really ugly sow's ear.

That doesn't mean Moulton has to come to WR and broadcast a play-by-play of everything he's doing to make those peoples' online lives miserable, though. That's the part I really object to, in case I hadn't made that clear enough from the outset.

I can see what you mean, though I tend to take a little more of a middle ground on that. I agree Wikiversity is most likely doomed to failure (well, they'll all fail at some point or another, but WV most likely earlier than many of the other projects). However, I think, in many cases, trying it out and seeing what happens could be worthwhile. I just wish people would enter into these kinds of projects without their rose-colored blinders on (that seems the best phrase to describe the idealistic intentional ignorance some display).

The inclusionism JWSchmidt was pushing on WV is good example. Along with the lack of concrete guidelines regarding the purpose and scope of the project, it created a wide-open door for abuse, and likely has hastened the project's demise.

Whoa there! I haven't accused YOU of anything. I've said why the WHOLE case against Moulton looks weak. You've provided rambling diffs it would take me far too long to read- what are the actual EXAMPLES of ad hominem, 'lies', using power abusviely etc. I referred to in my earlier post?

Verbosity and hyperbole cannot form part of this case of wrongdoing- as I said before, there'd have to be a mass cull if this was the case (and you and I would be in the queue to get offed- as well as most of WR, WP and Guardian Journalists, to name just a few).

Moulton- please don't think I'm sitting in judgement of you either- I don't like how this is turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt against you frankly.

And just to be clear- I AM talking about the sitch at WV- which is part of the WMF, is it not? There's a whole new potential thread that could be formed on whether a Jim Wales venture (even an ostensible 'academic' one) is going to run into the same problems as WP per se in terms of culture and power games in the production of knowledge- a ubiquitous problem, yes: but as we have seen before, Wikipedia projects have specific problems in these areas.

Yeah the diffs are long long and rambling. That's exactly why I wasn't thrilled about digging through things. You're requesting evidence of behavior that has little to do with why Moulton was blocked from WV, despite Jimbo's misleading "incivility" reason when the block was placed.

Do you then agree that Jimbo's charge of "incivility" was bogus?

That depends... If the question is: "Were you incivil to the point where blocking was an acceptable response?" then the answer is "Yes." I explained to you why just using a first name would be uncivil, and you'd already faced problems on WP for using full names, so there's no way you could not know you were asking for trouble by using a full name.

On the other hand, if the question is: "Did Jimbo really block you because of incivility?" then my answer is "No. It was probably just what he considered the quickest answer."

[Moulton]

Wikiversity Community Review

User:Moulton

User:Jimbo Wales banned Moulton for incivility . This may have not been the most transparent of actions and may have been a surprise to some. I am posting this here so if Wikiversity users would like, they can discuss it here to see if there is in fact consensus among Wikiversity users to ban User:Moulton. I'm not suggesting lifting the ban at all, although Wikiversity:Community Review seems like it would be the place to do it. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Supports the ban - To separate me a bit from that, I will start this new indented reply. I support the banning of User:Moulton for a couple reasons and probably more.

1. He should have known better than to post emails and other things that have had to be oversighted multiple times

2. Jimbo Wales believes he should be blocked for the good of the wiki and the community - Wikipedia is much more mature and "successful" than Wikiversity thus far and we should follow his advice based on his accumulated experience with facilitating the success of projects.

3. Not respecting and also circumventing the block thus far. So I support a ban until furthur notice. He is certainly more than welcome to participate and in a thoughtful and considerate manner on other wikis and show that he can do so in ways that is accepted by the larger community.

Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with below comments showing concern for the way the block was implimented, I am highly disconcerted by the way Moulton has refused to acknowledge his block, and continues to antagonize elements of Wikiversity, setting himself up as a martyr. I would like to see better behavior coming from him before lifting the block. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see bad behavior. He is trying to effect a major paradigm shift. When you look at what he has done from other perspectives, it can be justified. I am going to establish a sub section were we can set out exactly what we see as bad. I don't think we have ever sat down and done this. i would rather not lose a visiting scientist at MIT with a PhD in Network Technology. Geo.plrd 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Experts can be a valuable resource to wikivervsity and we should encourage their contributions. But, I think we need to distinguish between mere affiliation or credentials and the more important issue of the quality of the contributions which an expert makes here within their field of study. Isn't that the real reason why wikiversity should strive to encourage an expert to participate? I am not aware of any edits that Moulton has made to "Network Technology" pages. Please provide links if I have missed something. The majority of his contributions have little to do with his research. See: Wikiversity the Movie/Wikiversity is a Mighty Fine Ditch or this example (copy of one of his contributions which was deleted from wv.) Please clarify how his position at MIT is relevant to this dicussion. --mikeu talk 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mikeu. Moulton's PhD is only relevant if he had been contributing significantly in a relevant field at Wikiversity. As it is, he seems to have entirely ignored his specialty, and as such, his role as an "expert" is meaningless here. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I primarily am concerned with the precedent Jimbo has set with this block. It appears from the discussion that he will remain blocked. The main point I want is that Jimbo is out of line, not that Moulton is unblocked. Geo.plrd 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that following the lead of Wikipedia is a good idea. The mission of Wikipedia contradicts that of Wikiversity. Its like having a Professor of English do your taxes. The foundation of the community is that the Community has paramount power. Jimbo stepping in and unilaterally imposing sanctions takes power from the community. While I have no problem with him expressing the opinion that Moulton was wrong, I do not believe it is academically sound to allow him to force that opinion down our throats. Regardless of whether it was right, it is the wrong path to start down. In the law, this is called a slippery slope. You don't go down these slippery slopes because of the ways it can spiral into unpleasant things. Geo.plrd 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As fas I'm concerned, we're not going to be applying this as an example of judicial precedent here. If it becomes something other than an isolated incident, the community might have to draw up a statement to send to Wales to encourage him to back off. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedural Reverse - I move to reverse the ban on the grounds that Jimbo has overstepped his authority. Geo.plrd 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Emesee, I take it that you do not distinguish a block and a ban. Anyway, Jimbo Wales has not edited Wikiversity since its launch and we can consider him a (re-)newcomer and unfamiliar with Wikiversity as it is now. His unfamiliarity can be seen, at least, in this edit [5], where he said he was happy to "remove" Dtobias from the project (a very unwikiversity expression!) if necessary over an action a month before under completely different environment, atmosphere and circumstances. I consider his action very much "wikipedia-like" and is unsuitable for wikiversity, which has a different demographic and has evolved differently. Looking at the (in my opinion) juvenile flame wars on wikipedia (sample of which has recently been seen on wikiversity), I would not consider wikipedia in any way more "mature" than wikiversity. If Moulton were to be blocked, there should be a community discussion of the reasons; Moulton should have been given a specific final warning on-wiki, and a suitable time-limit be proposed. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you think that a block and a ban are different. Emesee 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is right. For example, I do not oppose if, as an emergency measure, a wikiversity custodian blocked Moulton for a specific time limit for a specific thing he did (like posting private information on wikiversity, or flooding the recentchanges with edit wars). However, as wikiversity is a wiki, a ban should be by the community - or, as it is a website, the owner of the host. As it stands, Moulton was blocked by Wales in consultation with the bureaucrats and the community still has to discuss the block. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support block. For reasons that we have started to elaborate on at Requests relating to Moulton, Moulton's block, Moulton's talk page and range block log. I will contribute much more on this page in the coming days... --mikeu talk 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the precedent that this block set? Geo.plrd 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Realize that one can support the block without supporting the precedent (see above). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the initial block set a precedent. --mikeu talk 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, If we are to discuss the block of Wales, we should not use the events that happened afterwards to justify it.:-) --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a little confused about which section of this page is for which part of the discussion... There are multiple issues: the reasons for Moulton getting blocked in the first place (regardless of by whom), the fact that it was Wales who made the block, events that happened after that, if the block should continue, and if the block should be a ban. Sorry if my comments about different aspects are getting mixed up within the wrong sections. Let me back up. Moulton was going to get blocked. There is no question about that. The reasons for the block had been building for some time. I was holding off on doing it (before I was even aware that Wales knew of Moulton's edits on wv) to give diplomatic attempts a chance to show progress. I was not particularly hopeful that those efforts would succeed given how the dialogue was going at that time. I was also concerned that attempts to work with Moulton were draining the time and energy of the community. Moulton might have had another day or two to edit before the first short blocks by me or others, maybe a week or so before that escalated to an indef. But, IMHO, when it happened - it was long overdue. --mikeu talk 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also Support a ban, although we should probably clarify what we mean by the terms "block" and "ban" in the context of this discussion. --mikeu talk 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good juncture to point out the earliest known reference to a "ban" in the written law. Oddly enough, the very first law ever set in stone makes reference to a ban. 3750 years ago, Hammurabi of Babylonia (Mesopotamia) set 282 laws into stone. Here are the first three of them:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

The second of Hammurabi's laws is a rather odd one. Perhaps it's the origin of the expression, "Go jump in the lake."

Isn't it a tad ironic that here in cyberspace in 2008, Jimbo is reprising a practice first defined in law by none other than Hammurabi himself? And according to Hammurabi's version, Jimbo has to prove his allegation of incivility to make the ban stick.

Original Spin 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongest support block/an possible - Not here to create learning resources. A consumate troll across multiple internet sites. Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the precedent that this block set? Geo.plrd 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this block. I also urge people to look through the activity documented at User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block. However, I am still not happy with the precedent of this block, and encourage the community to continue working on our principles and policies to ensure that, in the future, we take these sorts of decisions and actions as a community. Cormaggio talk 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. I disagree with how it came about, but I do not support unblocking based purely on procedure. Moulton's behavior on WV was inappropriate before the block, and has only gotten worse after. His scientific expertise is mostly irrelevant, as his only contributions have been well outside his sphere. In fact, I have not seen a single edit of his that could be considered a worthwhile contribution to WV. He's too focused on his personal feuds to make unblocking him a good idea, as being wronged on Wikipedia does not excuse his behavior here. I agree with Cormaggio that this should not be considered a precedent, but instead an exception. We in the WV community need to develop a better method for dealing with problem behavior in the future. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedural Matter

I would like to amend the above matter and focus on a broader issue, the role of Jimbo. What power should he have. He is not an active member of this community, and arbitrary actions seem to make us subject to his will, a violation of academic freedom. Geo.plrd 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you detail your involvement with "Arbcab," your multiple rejected bids for admin/MedCab on en.wp, your sanction for providing legal advice re. Wikipedia Review, what Zoe, Quiddity and ^demon have determined your motiviations were for your various en.wp edits, along with your involvement in "Esperanza" and the disruptive recreation of such? Inquring minds want to know exactly how much drama you intend to bring here before someone makes you stop. Why aren't you out powertripping at Conservapedia, exactly? Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was under the impression that this is Wikiversity? If I am mistaken, please let me know. Geo.plrd 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you also comment on your invasion of User:H's privacy (I believe you were banned from en.wp over this), as it's especially relevent to this matter. Salmon of Doubt 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean the mistake Daniel made? He thought another user was me and made an honest mistake. Geo.plrd 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And how is any of that relevant, Salmon? If you have a problem with what Geo.plrd is doing, why not address that, rather than attempt to poison the well? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only poisoning the well if it's unrelated. Geoff's consistant actions to create disruptive bureaucracy and then attempt join it in a position of power is exactly what we have here. It's laughable. Salmon of Doubt 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Salmon, you are spinning discussion away from the pressing issue of a bad precedent. For general information, here is what I have done here. I revamped a dormant department and am working on a survey course of US history? What is so bureaucratic about that? Geo.plrd 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking disruptive influences with a minimum of your inflamed bureaucracy is not a bad precedent. You are spimming discussion away from the pressing issue of your three year long abuse of process and sockpuppetry. Salmon of Doubt 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Salmon, while Geo may hold a minority view here at Community Review, his contributions at Wikiversity which I have noticed have been thus far constructive. I do not think it is appropriate to be attacking him for his actions at other pages here. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If Geo, a consumate bureaucratic warrior, were arguing for anything but more bureaucratic nonsense, that would be true. Salmon of Doubt 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you ignoring his other constructive contributions at Wikiversity recently? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Beyond the damage he's causing here, I am deeply concerned that a high school junior (16 years old, for those not in the US) whose most substantial contribution to the public discourse is at "conservapedia," widely seen as anti-historical and a polemical far-rightist institution of disinformation intends to be the "INSTRUCTOR" in a "survey of the history of the United States of America, taught at the college level." Luckily, Wikiversity is the university that everyone can edit - when he attempts to inform us that Uncle Roy Cohn was a GREAT MAN WHO DID NOT DIE OF AIDS AND WAS CERTAINLY NO HOMOSEXUAL, I'll be right there to remind everyone that that's nonsense. Salmon of Doubt 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are ignoring his other constructive contributions. Please be aware, Salmon, that right now you appear to be engaging in outing, and you are without question being very rude. I know a few teenagers with enough understanding of American History to be able to teach many others about elements of it, including myself, and I hold a degree in History. As you are not involved at the School of History at all, I do not see how you consider yourself to be in any position to judge who should or should not contribute there. I do not see Geo doing "any damage" on Wikiversity. Apart from his disagreement with you on this page, can you point out any other specific examples of "damage" he has done on Wikiversity? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be engaging in "outing" if I revealed anything at all about Geoff that was non public or even remotely hidden. It is, however, not. Geoff reveals his name here. He talks about Conservapedia here. He reveals his age here. This is all public. I look foward to Geoff to not damaging wikiversity any further. Salmon of Doubt 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are still very hostile and rude. And you have ignored my other comments and concerns. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoff: Jimbo acted as he very occasionally does, and in the same way as all stewards occasionally do: intervening in (often) unprecedented circumstances, and where the community is either non-existent, or damaged, or where there could be a danger of serious community damage. I think the 'precedent' we should be discussing here is action which had not been explicitly discussed in a community forum - not whether Jimbo has any authority here. The key issue is whether we, as a community, have policies and procedures in place to deal with problems when they arise - which, when working within Wikimedia's broad mission, would mean that Jimbo, or any steward, or Wikimedia agent would never have to intervene. Cormaggio talk 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than attempt to tell Jimbo what to do, it would be wiser and more effective just to make his intervention unnecessary in the future. This page seems to be a move to create a more appropriate place to discuss the less cut-and-dried issues that will arise now and then. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's Behavior

What behavior of Moulton's do we see as unaccpetable? Geo.plrd 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Taunting other contributors on this project and Releasing private information of individuals on this project, for starters. Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Moulton has thoroughly demonstrated he will not constructively contribute to this project:

• Using a project as a platform for a personal feud was the biggest problem, IMO. His "case study" is a good example of this.
  
• When others attempt to address his poor behavior, he tends to lawyer based on procedure, rather than address the issues. When dealing with my removal of his bogus case studies, he refused to address my arguments, instead claiming that I was not following the correct procedure (mostly through private channels). See also his unblock request
  
• He tends to spam his work through excessive links and multiple cut-and-pastes.
  
• Rather than moderate his behavior, he edit-wars (see the Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion history).
  
• When KillerChihuahua joined the project in order to address what she felt were inappropriate attacks, Moulton taunted and attacked her with her real name multiple times (I believe most of that is now oversighted). This is related to his attempt to continue a feud here that began on Wikipedia.

In short, Moulton is obsessed with getting back at those he feels wronged him, has acted against the goals of the Wikiversity project, and has not been willing to moderate his behavior, instead taking advantage of the patient, inclusive atmosphere. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block for more detailed examples. Cormaggio talk 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While the point about the edit-wars may be valid, it is also valid to say there were others involved. It would only be fair to name who else was involved in the edit-wars. Dzonatas 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

True, though I don't think it's absolutely necessary to name the others here, since this was specifically about Moulton's behavior. It's worth noting that he has also reinserted edits removed for more serious issues, such as when he used real names. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is not worth it to mention the others, then it is not worth it to mention there was an edit-war at all. Dzonatas 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that his constant violations against his (initially temporary) block combined with his use of totally one-sided examples and loaded rhetoric to push forward his POV are what are what are most unacceptable (in addition to "outing"). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Moulton]

Jimbo acted as he very occasionally does, and in the same way as all stewards occasionally do: intervening in (often) unprecedented circumstances, and where the community is either non-existent, or damaged, or where there could be a danger of serious community damage. I think the 'precedent' we should be discussing here is action which had not been explicitly discussed in a community forum - not whether Jimbo has any authority here. The key issue is whether we, as a community, have policies and procedures in place to deal with problems when they arise - which, when working within Wikimedia's broad mission, would mean that Jimbo, or any steward, or Wikimedia agent would never have to intervene. Cormaggio talk 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't fail to disagree less.

[Lar]

Jimbo acted as he very occasionally does, and in the same way as all stewards occasionally do: intervening in (often) unprecedented circumstances, and where the community is either non-existent, or damaged, or where there could be a danger of serious community damage. I think the 'precedent' we should be discussing here is action which had not been explicitly discussed in a community forum - not whether Jimbo has any authority here. The key issue is whether we, as a community, have policies and procedures in place to deal with problems when they arise - which, when working within Wikimedia's broad mission, would mean that Jimbo, or any steward, or Wikimedia agent would never have to intervene. Cormaggio talk 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't fail to disagree less.

Heh.

Except that your general fail level is epic.

[Moulton]

Moulton demonstrates his ineptitude yet again.

Jimbo acted as he very occasionally does, and in the same way as all stewards occasionally do: intervening in (often) unprecedented circumstances, and where the community is either non-existent, or damaged, or where there could be a danger of serious community damage. I think the 'precedent' we should be discussing here is action which had not been explicitly discussed in a community forum - not whether Jimbo has any authority here. The key issue is whether we, as a community, have policies and procedures in place to deal with problems when they arise - which, when working within Wikimedia's broad mission, would mean that Jimbo, or any steward, or Wikimedia agent would never have to intervene. Cormaggio talk 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't fail to disagree less.

Heh.

Except that your general fail level is epic.

Indeed it is.

I keep trying to falsify various hypotheses, and I continue to fail to falsify them in an utterly epic manner.

Take this epic failure, for example...

Moulton is asking that their block be reviewed.

• Reason for unblocking:

Please unblock Moulton for the purpose of refuting H1, namely the as-yet unrefuted hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so). —Barsoom Tork 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the prediction of H1 remains true, and the custodians continue to reify H1 rather than refute or falsify it.

I fear that H1 may emerge as the only surviving hypothesis characterizing the political dynamics of Wikiversity.

Lar, I tried like the dickens to falsify H1, and true to my miserable track record, I utterly failed yet again.

Such an inept scientist, am I.

[Moulton]

Odd Socracy tackles Wikimedia's ad hoc Ochlocracy

Should Jimbo have come in here and IARed a block on Moulton? Probably not, despite statements from some curators that effectively admit that at the time they temporarily lacked the will to do it themselves. So... bad process. But good outcome. Unblock because of bad process? No. Cost benefit analysis shows Moulton to be a huge drain on resources, far in excess of what most people would judge as the benefit. This is especially bad for smaller wikis that have less resources. I support this ban. But I have little to no standing in this community, take it as an outside view, nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The notion of ignoring all rules makes sense, as long as the dysfunctional rules are supplanted by some intelligently crafted functional protocols.

So I actually applaud part of what Jimbo did, which was to set aside the rules as ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

Unfortunately what Jimbo did was a gross breach of the protocols that — were they in place at WMF-sponsored projects — would have avoided the unruly circus that arose in the wake of Jimbo's cameo appearance on the Wikiversity stage.

Since Jimbo's unruliness has obviously failed, it's up to me to demonstrate how to transcend the dysfunctionality of the rules in a more innovative and functional manner.

In the process, I expect to see a lot more dysfunctional reactions from Wikiversitans who still do not understand what I am talking about when I speak of functional protocols.

[Moulton]

Living History

Tonight Emesee and Original Spin re-enacted a fascinating scene from political history.

Emesee abruptly erased the comments of Original Spin and summarily blocked him.

The version of the Community Review just before Emesee redacted the history lesson is here.

The subject of the history lesson was the origin of the practice of banning...

I would also Support a ban, although we should probably clarify what we mean by the terms "block" and "ban" in the context of this discussion. --mikeu talk 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good juncture to point out the earliest known reference to a "ban" in the written law. Oddly enough, the very first law ever set in stone makes reference to a ban. 3750 years ago, Hammurabi of Babylonia (Mesopotamia) set 282 laws into stone. Here are the first three of them:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

The second of Hammurabi's laws is a rather odd one. Perhaps it's the origin of the expression, "Go jump in the lake."

Isn't it a tad ironic that here in cyberspace in 2008, Jimbo is reprising a practice first defined in law by none other than Hammurabi himself? And according to Hammurabi's version, Jimbo has to prove his allegation of incivility to make the ban stick.

Original Spin 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Emesee reacted rather precipitously at the above, revising history and harshly applying the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation to Original Spin.

# (cur) (last) 04:51, 8 October 2008 Original Spin (Talk | contribs) (49,196 bytes) (Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 04:50, 8 October 2008 Emesee (Talk | contribs) (47,542 bytes) (we are not going to start this cycle again. i will block you so quick if you do that again. i will be glad to send my checkuser info in and then consult about using it. we are not going to start this.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 04:49, 8 October 2008 Original Spin (Talk | contribs) (49,196 bytes) (This is an educational process. Please don't spoil the history lessons for those who wish to learn.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 04:40, 8 October 2008 Emesee (Talk | contribs) m (47,542 bytes) (Reverted edits by Original Spin (Talk) to last version by Jade Knight using rollback) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 04:39, 8 October 2008 Original Spin (Talk | contribs) (49,196 bytes) (→User:Moulton: Hammurabi's very first law: If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.) (undo)

Wikiversity seems to have little tolerance for living history lessons.

[everyking]

Though his law was crude by today's standards, Hammurabi was nevertheless way ahead of Jimbo; his system was, after all, based on an essential notion of fairness. I think you're giving Jimbo a little too much credit by even making the comparison.


This post has been edited by everyking:

[Milton Roe]

Though his law was crude by today's standards, Hammurabi was nevertheless way ahead of Jimbo; his system was, after all, based on an essential notion of fairness. I think you're giving Jimbo a little too much credit by even making the comparison.

Yep. By comparison, what operates on WP is less like the Code of Hammurabi and more like the Code of Gumbi. There is considerable irony in the fact that WP under Jimbo and his lackeys is actually far closer to what Moulton has been asking for, than it is to any historical hard-fast, if--->then, binary set of rules. But of course, Moulton doesn't like it, either.

I'm reminded of the anarchists who imagine themselves in an anarchic paradise. "What's to prevent somebody shooting you and taking all your stuff?" I ask. "Oh, well, I'd want to outgun them."

"Ah, I see! You want the sort of anarchic paradise where YOU'RE the king!"

[Moulton]

Though his law was crude by today's standards, Hammurabi was nevertheless way ahead of Jimbo; his system was, after all, based on an essential notion of fairness. I think you're giving Jimbo a little too much credit by even making the comparison.

Yep. By comparison, what operates on WP is less like the Code of Hammurabi and more like the Code of Gumbi. There is considerable irony in the fact that WP under Jimbo and his lackeys is actually far closer to what Moulton has been asking for, than it is to any historical hard-fast, if--->then, binary set of rules. But of course, Moulton doesn't like it, either.

I'm reminded of the anarchists who imagine themselves in an anarchic paradise. "What's to prevent somebody shooting you and taking all your stuff?" I ask. "Oh, well, I'd want to outgun them."

"Ah, I see! You want the sort of anarchic paradise where YOU'RE the king!"

Speaking of one gunslinger in Dodge City outshooting the next...

blatant misuse of ops privledges on irc; decision making process

Hello, Johnny. You said on wikiversity:community review, "We also saw a blatant misuse of ops privledges on irc: Salmon of Doubt had requested that Moulton be kicked (he was posting private correspondence, names and email addresses of people who had not given consent to do so). When Salmon asked who had ops, JWS opped himself, but did not kick or ban... he was just showing who had the tools."

I am not familiar with irc. In what way is this an abuse?

And Johnny, thanks for your comment. You have described the basis of your decision to block John Schmidt. What about the decision making process? Where did the discussion take place? Thanks. Best, --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Using or brandishing ops tools in a threatening way is inherently abusive, especially in the context of what had been going on on that channel.

The discussions took about a month or so, and were held via email, irc, and an alternate wiki. At the time we didn't feel that we could have a normal conversation on-wiki due to what was going on with both Moulton and JWS.

--SB_Johnny talk 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, thank you for articulating this principle, defining abuse of power...

“Using or brandishing ops tools in a threatening way is inherently abusive, especially in the context of what had been going on on that channel.”

Now please compare that principle to this curious record wherein Emesee writes this edit summary:

“we are not going to start this cycle again. i will block you so quick if you do that again. i will be glad to send my checkuser info in and then consult about using it. we are not going to start this.”

Would you be kind enough to carefully rationalize Emesee's brandishment and rapid exercise of power tools in light of your above articulated principle? Can you please rationalize Emesee's conduct in a way that totally exculpates, excuses, and exonerates him whilst still forthrightly and justly condemning JWS for brandishing his ops weapons without actually using them?

Thank you in advance for clearing up this mind-arresting confusion for me.

Mokita Syzygy 12:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[Moulton]

On Twitter, Jimbo quotes from Steve Pavlina's blog on the subject of insults...

"If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, the other person still owns that gift. The same is true of insults..." -Pavlina

The remark (as Jimbo subsequently notes) is not original with Steve Pavlina, but comes from Buddha...

There was a story about the Buddha where a verbally abusive man came to see him and starting hurling insults. But the Buddha just sat there calmly. Finally the man asked the Buddha why he failed to respond to the insults and abuse. The Buddha replied, “If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, to whom does the gift belong?” If someone is irrational, abusive, etc., you can mentally decline to accept “the gift.” Let that person keep their anger and insanity, and don’t let it affect you. This takes practice, but there are many mental imagery techniques that can help. I usually visualize the anger as a red energy that bounces off me or passes through me and simply returns to the source. This is a message to my subconscious mind to acknowledge that the anger belongs completely to the other person. So this part tackles the other person’s affect on my emotional state. And it works very well. I never lose my cool unless I’m doing it on purpose for some specific reason. Sometimes it’s better to respond to an angry person with some shouting of your own and then slowly bring them back down. I also mentally acknowledge that it’s probably a lack of love and happiness in their life that causes them to behave as they do.

I feel the same way about indefinite blocks and site-bans on Wikipedia and Wikiversity.

[Versa]

Jimbo's quoting Steve Pavlina?

Yow!

Steve Pavlina some time ago changed from writing useful articles about the improving productivity through goals and habits type of personal development to writing the whacky kind of articles about personal development.

Recent topics include:


shifting-your-vibration-to-manifest-your-desires.
"You are not a physical being in a physical universe. You are an energetic/vibrational being in an energetic/vibrational universe. You are both a transmitter and a receiver of energy.
"

and

polyamory
"At this particular time in my life, I feel ready to move on from monogamy though. I can see that it would be the wrong path for me in the years ahead."

On Twitter, Jimbo quotes from Steve Pavlina's blog on the subject of insults...

"If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, the other person still owns that gift. The same is true of insults..." -Pavlina

The remark (as Jimbo subsequently notes) is not original with Steve Pavlina, but comes from Buddha...

There was a story about the Buddha where a verbally abusive man came to see him and starting hurling insults. But the Buddha just sat there calmly. Finally the man asked the Buddha why he failed to respond to the insults and abuse. The Buddha replied, “If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, to whom does the gift belong?” If someone is irrational, abusive, etc., you can mentally decline to accept “the gift.” Let that person keep their anger and insanity, and don’t let it affect you. This takes practice, but there are many mental imagery techniques that can help. I usually visualize the anger as a red energy that bounces off me or passes through me and simply returns to the source. This is a message to my subconscious mind to acknowledge that the anger belongs completely to the other person. So this part tackles the other person’s affect on my emotional state. And it works very well. I never lose my cool unless I’m doing it on purpose for some specific reason. Sometimes it’s better to respond to an angry person with some shouting of your own and then slowly bring them back down. I also mentally acknowledge that it’s probably a lack of love and happiness in their life that causes them to behave as they do.

I feel the same way about indefinite blocks and site-bans on Wikipedia and Wikiversity.

This post has been edited by Versa:

[Moulton]

Two years on from the above chronicled events, John Schmidt has published his two-part analysis of the issues:

Great moments in online learning. Part I.

Great moments in online learning. Part II.

[Ottava]

A better Buddhist story:

Two monks were walking along a path one day until they came upon a river. By the river was a woman who couldn't get across. The older of the two monks picked her up and carried her as they crossed. On the other side of the river, he let her go and the two monks went on their way.

Later, the younger monk turned to the older monk and said, "Why did you carry that woman across the water? You know that carrying her would be against our rules."

The older monk turned to the younger monk and said, "I only carried her across the water. You've been carrying her since the river."

The lesson there is two fold: 1. what is right is not always what is written down as being right and 2. be willing to let the past go.

[Moulton]

A follow-up question...

Who, among those who were at that river-crossing two years ago, have since had an epiphany?

[Ottava]

A follow-up question...

Who, among those who were at that river-crossing two years ago, have since had an epiphany?

Not sure, but at least you stopped with all the martian characters so I wouldn't have to keep blocking. You weren't very subtle in your socking attempts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Moulton]

Those weren't socks in the conventional sense. They were characters who spoke from different perspectives in the liminal social drama that was underway at the time.

Note that even Moulton, my nominal online avatar, is one such character.

[Ottava]

Those weren't socks in the conventional sense. They were characters who spoke from different perspectives in the liminal social drama that was underway at the time.

Note that even Moulton, my nominal online avatar, is one such character.

Well, regardless.

You were making your return very blatant, so you had to be blocked very blatantly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

You were making your return very blatant, so you had to be blocked very blatantly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

[Moulton]

You were making your return very blatant, so you had to be blocked very blatantly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Precisely so. That was the toxic managerial influence of Jimbo Wales that precipitated the liminal social drama then, as it did again this past week in a similar episode.

[Ottava]

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Well, I have yet to discover a way to block someone without any record of it.

[Abd]

My apologies for the length, and I must leave now, I'm a rug merchant on Sundays.... Hand-knotted Persian tribal rugs anyone? I really wish that there was something like WP collapse here, I could later re-organize this.

A better Buddhist story:

Two monks were walking along a path one day until they came upon a river. By the river was a woman who couldn't get across. The older of the two monks picked her up and carried her as they crossed. On the other side of the river, he let her go and the two monks went on their way.

Later, the younger monk turned to the older monk and said, "Why did you carry that woman across the water? You know that carrying her would be against our rules."

The older monk turned to the younger monk and said, "I only carried her across the water. You've been carrying her since the river."

The lesson there is two fold: 1. what is right is not always what is written down as being right and 2. be willing to let the past go.

How deep was the river?

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these are often superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings. Hint: the "morals" make assumptions about rightness and the state of someone being advised. "Be willing!" is advice for the benefit of whom? And from whom?

Absolutely, for the benefit of the individual, letting go of what cannot be changed (such as the past) is a course that will lead to increased happiness. For the individual. What about for the society? What is good advice for those on the path of the bodhisattva, who surrender their personal happiness, which they know is in detachment and removal from involvement with the world, in favor of liberating all sentient beings?

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it. I did not ask him to explain, even though I hadn't been explaining any metaphor, I had coined one. I think the servant taking the comment to him had taken his own understanding of what I'd said, not my words. It was all a metaphor, indeed, this is all a metaphor.

Moulton, your understanding and your wisdom could be of great benefit to the world, perhaps are already, elsewhere. In a functional Wikipedia/Wikiversity community, they would be given due respect, and if you fell into behavioral problems, as most of us do from time to time, you would be guided through them, not expelled. You do understand what communities need, but you did not know how to bring this about, reliably, on WikiVersity, and I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia history, I only know your present condition and what you have pointed to in your old writing.

But your story is the story of many. SB Johnny regrets that there had not been more academic and expert input. There was lots of it. It was buried in the noise and rejected. Wisdom and knowledge do not automatically come to the surface, except under certain conditions; the wiki vision was defective, fooled by the chaotic existence of conditions that do produce improvement with little structure.

What happens on Wikipedia when an expert shows up? First of all, a real expert is accustomed to some kind of deference, after all, they paid their dues. Their credentials mean nothing on Wikipedia. However, they could still be effective, if they are truly expert, and if all editors received respect according to the cogency of their arguments and how what they present can be found in strong sources. I argued before ArbComm that all those claiming to be expert should be treated as COI, and this was absolutely not understood. It does mean a restriction, but it also means freedom. A COI editor is expected to be biased toward a point of view, but is allowed to present this point of view in Talk. When that breaks down, when points of view are excluded from Talk, experts are helpless if the expert point of view somehow is unpopular. Even more so if the expert is in a minority in the field.

So, meeting opposition, what does the expert do? The expert knows that the opposition is stupid and ignorant (as one possibility). Somehow we expect experts to not be human, I think there was a naive assumption that if someone gets angry, they must not be professional. That's true. But none of these experts were being paid to edit Wikipedia! And they found it completely frustrating to meet revert-warring over what was obvious to them. Had they been warned not to edit articles contentiously, but to advise the community, and then protected against attack for giving advice (good or bad!), we'd have a very different situation. Instead, the expert sooner or later burst out with the obvious, he was dealing with a bunch of idiots, and so he is blocked and sometimes banned if the idiots were administrators or knew one.

Democratic societies, which are the strongest in the long run, together with oligarchies or autocracies while they operate within certain limits, learned long ago to rigorously protect minority opinion, for, if they do not, they become rigid and unable to change. WikiVersity, because of the heavy tradition of academic freedom, may be, in fact, a golden opportunity to reform the entire WikiMedia system.

Can WikiVersity put together, with all the tools available and within reach, a genuine self-governing system that could take over from the WMF? Jimbo is clearly ambivalent about this. He wants the wikis to be self-governing, I think he's sincere about that. But somehow they aren't doing it. He may be incorrect about where they err, but he knows that something is wrong. He just doesn't know how to fix it, so he falls back on the old autocratic/oligarchical models. Which do work better than raw mob rule. Except not for true academic freedom (WikiVersity) or real NPOV (Wikipedia).

Wikipedia could be, sort of, NPOV if controlled by a traditional top-down structure that somehow was dedicated to finding the consensus of the knowledgeable (which is what consensus should really mean). But I don't know, at all, that it has access to this. It could mean abandoning the Wikipedia line of experiment and moving toward the Citizendium model, which would not be a terrible outcome.

But not as interesting to me as fixing the Wikipedia approach by adding in what it needs: genuine consensus process.

I have this MYOB ban which prevents me from commenting on disputes between other editors. It was based on some vague notion that this had been the problem. It wasn't. As to actual intervention in personal disputes between editors, I was pretty good at resolving them. A young editor and a professor of economics were having at it. I saw this from some beginnings of process, sooner or later one or both of them were going to be blocked. So I asked them if they were willing for me to mediate, showing sympathy for both. They accepted. I set up a page in my user space to explore the dispute. It was amazing how little it took, and they were happily cooperating, and I've seen that it continued. I don't consider myself a true expert at this, but there are people who are. Where are they? Why are they not immediately called in when there is a dispute getting out of hand?

Carcharoth is beginning to notice that there is some disruption going on, that it's not all coming from me. Brilliant. Now what? ArbComm had an opportunity to explore the roots of disputes, but elected, instead, to sit back and make judgments based on how many editors were on one side (lots supporting WMC and a handful supporting my position, which ArbComm actually supported!) and how many words were written by the sides (more against me, but that was two dozen editors, and it always takes more words to clean up mudslinging than to toss it. I actually stopped responding, as many would advise. It didn't work.)

The Arbitration Committee is supposed to be the top level dispute resolution process, but it doesn't generally resolve disputes; instead it attempts to bury them. Carcharoth is concerned about the pile of stuff on ArbComm's "desk." I've suggested how it could easily handle that. All it takes is some structure. Bureaucracy, you could call it, except that it could be done ad-hoc with minimal formal structure. But some. Each arbitrator should have personal clerks or investigators, trusted by the arbitrator to investigate situations and compile reports, and responsible to the arbitrator. Whenever a matter rises to ArbComm, it should be neutrally investigated. Instead, ArbComm sits back and looks at what the parties present, which is usually cherry-picked and biased, so usually that when they see something different, they don't recognize it. They assume bias, and they tend to pick the bias that is most comfortable for them.

In RfAr/Abd and JzG, I had previously presented all the necessary evidence, clearly and succinctly, in RfC/JzG 3. In the end, what swung that case was that an arbitrator wrote a tool to do what I'd done manually, and presented the same evidence. Suddenly it was not possible to deny. Now, I'd presented carefully compiled diffs, not cherry-picked. They were complete records of edits to Cold fusion by JzG, showing length and depth of involvement. Any personal comments of mine were clearly kept separately identifiable. Yet many had assumed that JzG's edit summaries were my comments!

(In that RfAr, ArbComm suggested that I thoroughly document issues before proceeding up the DR ladder. That's exactly what I'd done! Don't they realize that "thorough documentation" takes more than snippy comments? I was very careful and thorough with DR, and that's why I was effective. And that I was effective is exactly why I was attacked. In the recent flap, there were no "walls of text." Yet many still seem to think that was the problem. It's knee-jerk thinking that doesn't look at present evidence, doesn't even think it needs it.)

Lack of neutral investigation, lack of careful formal process that establishes evidence first, and only proceeds to interpretation and conclusions later, lack of noise control (anyone can edit!), this makes neutral and cogent decision-making impossible. "Anyone can edit" should become "anyone can generate input for the editorial process, through efficient and rigorously fair filtering." How can that be done? Isn't that an interesting question?

So set it up, in a place where it cannot be disrupted. In order for it to be rigorously neutral, it must be rigorously independent, and it must be possible for there to be multiple processes. That each one might have some bias is only a problem if it's presumed to be artificially exclusive and not balanced by another independent process. Because it is off-wiki, it has no power except the power to advise. Which can be huge. If anyone is paying attention, and these processes can, if nothing else, advise their participants. But it they do their work well, they will do far more than that.

The open forum model can't do it (but it can be useful for developing community). The wiki model could, with some appropriate options, but it's a heavy administrative responsibility to run a wiki that is as open as these processes must be. I find mailing lists to be ideal, particularly if they have associated resources; I use yahoogroups lists, which seem to have better tools than googlegroups. I advise against using private domains, because it should be possible for anyone to quickly set up one of these lists, with settings that will work for purpose, just follow a model. I'll do it for anyone who asks, and retain ownership as a trustee for the group consensus, or turn it over as requested by a majority, under certain conditions (I'll lay all of that out formally, but, bottom line, there is no way I could abusively control these groups, they can snatch themselves away from my control, trivially and easily, and I end up controlling only my own ravings, all the essential function having moved itself elsewhere.)

(There is a domain, beyondpolitics.org, and a wiki, that could be used. The purpose of BP is encouraging the formation of Free Associations with Delegable Proxy (FA/DP), and, because of my work with Wikipedia, it's been badly neglected. I do have attention deficit disorder, my weakness and my strength.)

The biggest objection probably is based on a concept that this would be cumbersome and boring. That's probably based on experience with cumbersome, boring, repetitive discussions that go nowhere, the norm for many years in open fora. This is actually something different, though, without discipline of some kind, any list can become that. And such lists will die, generally. Natural consequences.

Imagine a mailing list with a "chair" and something like Robert's Rules of Order. That would be more like it. And committees (sublists) to deal with particular issues. Top-level list traffic is, when the scale gets large, heavily filtered through sublists. But the key point to remember is Rules of Order, things like not debating motions that aren't seconded, referring to committee if investigation is required, and, when scale is large, estimation of consensus through representation. Because these structures will not be making binding decisions -- except about their own process -- and because they will naturally seek consensus (divisive advice being *really stupid* and a waste of everyone's time), there is no need to worry greatly about sock puppetry, which, in such structures, will mostly waste the time of the puppet master. (Yeah, so the puppet master seconds his own motion. But nobody else really wants to waste time on it. Refer to Committee. The puppet master then debates with himself and comes up with a recommendation. Committee report. Motion to reject. Motion to close debate. Rejection passes, because there was nothing there but the ravings of the puppet master. Puppet master makes new motion and seconds. Objection to Consideration of the Question, passes. Motion to Censure Puppet Master. Passes. Puppet Master is now on moderation on the list, with the original second prohibited frmo seconding.

Suppose this happens abusively. Alleged Puppet Master and real independent editor suspected of being sock form their own list. Can they attract participation? Does it really matter? If they can convince any other member of the original list to present an idea, they can get it considered. If they can't, well, it was still a waste of time. Delegable proxy would enable even those banned to be represented, at least. You can't warp such a community by banning direct participation, unless you truly do ban a majority. Sock allegations get old fast when they are used, in fact, to exclude ideas.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Moulton]

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Well, I have yet to discover a way to block someone without any record of it.

Look up the story of how Odysseus blocked the Siren's Song by putting wax in his ears.

The antidote to Freedom of Speech is the Freedom to Not Listen.

Similarly, the antidote to Freedom to Learn is the Freedom to Remain Ignorant.

In the long run, it is futile to try to block the learning process among those who truly wish to learn.

[Ottava]

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these lessons is superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings.

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end. I also have some Zen Buddhist texts with the same.

Confucius also tended to give brief synopsis at the end of his stories.

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it.

Then I guess he wasn't a great teacher as he was never able to answer any of the student's questions. Putting forth an answer does not make it the only one, and humans are only capable of coming up with so many answers based on their own limited perspective. We need to pool our ideas together to come up with a more complete view.

[SB_Johnny]

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these lessons is superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings.

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end. I also have some Zen Buddhist texts with the same.

Confucius also tended to give brief synopsis at the end of his stories.

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it.

Then I guess he wasn't a great teacher as he was never able to answer any of the student's questions. Putting forth an answer does not make it the only one, and humans are only capable of coming up with so many answers based on their own limited perspective. We need to pool our ideas together to come up with a more complete view.

Anyone else suddenly thinking about Rocky and Bullwinkle?

[Ottava]

Anyone else suddenly thinking about Rocky and Bullwinkle?

Well, you always have reminded me of Dudley Do-Right.

[Moulton]

Moulton, your understanding and your wisdom could be of great benefit to the world, perhaps are already, elsewhere. In a functional Wikipedia/Wikiversity community, they would be given due respect, and if you fell into behavioral problems, as most of us do from time to time, you would be guided through them, not expelled. You do understand what communities need, but you did not know how to bring this about, reliably, on WikiVersity, and I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia history, I only know your present condition and what you have pointed to in your old writing.

But your story is the story of many. SB Johnny regrets that there had not been more academic and expert input. There was lots of it. It was buried in the noise and rejected. Wisdom and knowledge do not automatically come to the surface, except under certain conditions; the wiki vision was defective, fooled by the chaotic existence of conditions that do produce improvement with little structure.

It didn't take me very long to diagnose the problems in Wikipedia, but solving them proved impossible, for reasons that many have sought to analyze over the past few years.

From the outset, Wikiculture was not structured along the lines of an academic enterprise. Instead it was structured along the lines of a game which attracted power players who were not obliged to operate within the normative bounds of scholarly ethics.

[CharlotteWebb]

[03:13] *** Quits: Abd (Excess Flood)

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end.

Must be the guy who wrote The Art of War [and Peace]. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

[03:13] *** Quits: Abd (Excess Flood)

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end.

Must be the guy who wrote The Art of War [and Peace]. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

You're thinking of Sun Tzu.
Lao Tzu was more concerned with the art of peace.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Lar]

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Well, I have yet to discover a way to block someone without any record of it.

While that's true, there are also degrees of PR around an event.

[Moulton]

I don't have a good vantage point from which to assess the negative PR associated with cases of interest here, but I do note that Jimbo has long expressed his worry about such negative PR that "brings the project into disrepute."

[Ottava]

While that's true, there are also degrees of PR around an event.

Well, the only PR the one time was Moulton complaining that he had to spend a long time traveling in order to find an IP address that I didn't block. It was after I wished him a Merry Christmas.

[Abd]

It didn't take me very long to diagnose the problems in Wikipedia, but solving them proved impossible, for reasons that many have sought to analyze over the past few years.

From the outset, Wikiculture was not structured along the lines of an academic enterprise. Instead it was structured along the lines of a game which attracted power players who were not obliged to operate within the normative bounds of scholarly ethics.

Yes.

I followed the link in this WR post by Moulton and looked at the letter from Jimbo. Perhaps I should say "alleged letter," but I'm not feeling like an attorney today, nor a journalist. It's becoming clear where the culture of maniacal administrators comes from. The Founder never has to apologize. Jimbo wrote:

I am not aware that Alison is your counsel. Stop being a jackass. This is not a legal negotiation, this is me asking you a favor.

Don't waste my time with bullshit or I will just personally block you at wikiversity and that will be that. At that point, I can assure you that your lawyer can talk to Mike Godwin if that's the way you want to play this.

Or, you can just knock off the bullshit.

This was because Moulton had cc'd Alison, explaining that he needed "counsel." He did not use the word "lawyer" with respect to himself. I get the impression, increasingly, of someone in way over his head. I suspect Jimbo literally did not understand Moulton and wasn't willing to give it the time it would take. Quite simply, Jimbo was unable to communicate with very bright people (unless perhaps they were suitably deferential, all I can see is places where it broke down.)

So, Jimbo threatened Moulton with a block on Wikiversity. That he will do it "personally." This was male ego, strutting, browbeating, bullying, not allowing Moulton the courtesy that is necessary for mature communication. So, now, is it any wonder that Wikipedia is so much a collection of Jimbo clones in this respect? At what point will the WMF Board realize that the project cannot move beyond this while it leaves the Founder with the keys? How far will the project have to collapse?

The mission of Wikipedia is unrealizable by the Founder and those who think like him; by allowing the unrestrained rampage of unthinking mob rule, where a core of highly involved admins rip apart the intelligence of the community, unrecoverable damage may have been done.

Now, Moulton cites the Wikipedia ban discussion. I didn't recognize it as that, he'd simply called it the "Spammish Inquisition," but I happened to follow it, the link to RfC/Moulton. Arrgh.

This was about when I was starting to become active on Wikipedia. I am struck, reading it, how there are a group of editors who believe that their view of what Wikipedia is the only correct view, and it's clear that they did not understand Moulton, but were quite certain of his bad faith. What particularly hit me was the comment by Filll, which accused Moulton of pretending to be a supporter of evolution when he was not, citing a series of posts by Moulton which allegedly showed this. Filll did not state how he derived his conclusion from the posts, but it's clear to me that he didn't understand the posts.

The theory behind RfC has not been for it to be a ban discussion, but it became that.

Shame on the community for not (1) firmly telling Moulton to shut up, and (2) protecting him at the same time as it firmly guided him.

This "core" of the community, too active in that RfC, (it isn't the heart of it, more like a cancer) expects editors whom it has insulted, lied about, and abused, to be contrite. If the editor is not apologetic, but defiant, as is quite likely for anyone with a decent level of self-respect, that is proof, to them, that the editor is not suited for a collaborative project. Maybe, but it may be, instead, that a non-collaborative adhocratic project is not suitable for intelligent editors.

In real consensus process, differences are explored, pains are taken to make sure that communication is complete, that the parties understand each other, and the basis for disagreements is laid out. It takes time, and it takes patience, and it takes skill.

There is a vast difference between ejecting a person from a meeting for disruptive behavior and banning the person from the organization. blame and pressure behind it, that turns the responsibility over to the editor to decide when the editor will be unblocked. Blocks should simply mean "stop." Not "Game Over," as one editor wrote on the Talk page for the RfC. Communities have a right to control their own process, but a community which has, as its purpose, the compilation and editing of neutral content must follow much more sophisticated and thorough process than the norm. And Wikipedia is instead much worse than the norm, as far as I've seen. No business could long run as Wikipedia runs. No local voluntary organization could be nearly as abusive.

The problem with mob rule is that a mob will assume that if many people are upset with someone, the person must be a criminal or a troll. Mob rule works that way because it is possibly more often right than wrong, and a mob does not have time to investigate. Anyone like Moulton, or certain others, should come to know that they can inspire this kind of response, and be responsive to those who would help.

Did Moulton respond badly to the RfC and sequelae? Probably. But few people will respond well to what he went through. When one is abused by a mob, there is some tendency to assume that justice and sanity will eventually prevail, and if the mob cannot actually lynch you, courage seems in order, refusal to be dominated.

But justice and sanity will not prevail as long as the mob is running the place. When things settle down, maybe things might get better, but if there is no structure to bring out the best in people instead of the worst, and given the insulation from the requirements of ordinary civility, face to face, that on-line communication provides, structure is even more necessary.

So if Moulton is upsetting many editors, it's pretty clear that something should change. But by blaming Moulton, instead of the interaction, the solution becomes "Get Rid of Moulton," when it's the interaction that should change.

It can happen, also, and it is a hazard that the very intelligent can run afoul of, especially, that an editor is convinced that everyone else is a fool, and while this is not exactly an error, necessarily, it's a loss of perspective. The intelligent have no rights over the rest; and, indeed, I was raised in a culture where if you are smarter, you have more responsibility to care for everyone else. Or if you are more capable in any way, including bigger and stronger, you have that responsibility.

It's easy to understand how the highly educated, professors, etc., might imagine that they should have superior rights in an encyclopedia project. But there is another way to look at it. Who should control the project, the intellectual elite, or the readership? (Or someone or something else?) The average editor, in a sense, represents the general public, not experts. But shouldn't the general public value the knowledge and opinion of experts? Of course they should.

That's why repairing the interaction between editors, instead of fixing blame, would be so important. If one wants a functional and reliable encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I came across an edit war between a professor of economics, and a young editor, they were battling it out. I warned them that they could both be blocked if they continued, but I didn't stop with that. I invited them to discuss their differences in my user space. I asked them some questions, inviting them to explain what they disagreed about. I didn't have to do much. Something about the process changed both of them, and they turned into collaborators. I could, instead, have decided that one of them was "worse" than the other, or was "provoking" the other. I could have decided, perhaps, that the professor was more valuable to the project than this young editor. If I'd had a block button, I could have blocked one or both. But it wasn't necessary.

Wikipedia should have a corps of editors with skills in dispute resolution. They should not carry guns, i.e., block buttons. But, provided that they do their work without abuse, they should be protected. Instead, try it, folks, if a dispute involves an administrator and you aren't one. Or don't, if you value your account. Two non-admins with some skilled intervention, it can be relatively easy. But a dispute between an editor and an administrator can be very difficult, because no matter what is said about "no big deal," it's a big deal. Recusal policy should make it very clear: if you are in a dispute with an editor, you are just like everyone else, no special privileges. But admins back each other up, instinctively, in ways that they do not protect other editors. (When they aren't busy savaging each other.)

There is no mechanism for reform. That could be fixed, in theory. In practice? That's an open question, to my mind, but it looks pretty grim.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these lessons is superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings.

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end. I also have some Zen Buddhist texts with the same.

Yeah, later generations eventually decide they should explain stuff.

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it.

Then I guess he wasn't a great teacher as he was never able to answer any of the student's questions.

Ottava, am I twice your age or three times it?

He was telling me about a metaphor (my metaphor) that had been reported to him as having been explained by me. I don't think I did explain it, I think it was the messenger who took it upon himself to explain what I was saying. You mistook his comment for him justifying his own refusal to explain. Error.

But should a teacher explain a metaphor? It depends on what is being taught! When one is teaching a discipline that moves beyond the sphere of "explanation," an explanation can, indeed, kill the metaphor, destroy what might otherwise be communicated, by creating an illusion of understanding when the necessary insight is missing.

Putting forth an answer does not make it the only one, and humans are only capable of coming up with so many answers based on their own limited perspective. We need to pool our ideas together to come up with a more complete view.

The way I put it is this:

What do you get when you can see things from more than one point of view?

First answer: Depth Perception.

More recent answer: Banned.

[Moulton]

There is no mechanism for reform. That could be fixed, in theory. In practice? That's an open question, to my mind, but it looks pretty grim.

A few of us sought to craft a mechanism for reform, beginning with a workshop on Managerial Ethics at Wikiversity. We began with the core theory. Then Hillgentleman said we should apply the theory to case studies from Wikipedia, to see what Best Practices are suggested by the underlying theory. But the minute we began to construct the case studies, all hell broke loose; Wikiversity was invaded by a horde of corrupt editors from Wikipedia, who utterly trashed the project.

[GlassBeadGame]

There is no mechanism for reform. That could be fixed, in theory. In practice? That's an open question, to my mind, but it looks pretty grim.

A few of us sought to craft a mechanism for reform, beginning with a workshop on Managerial Ethics at Wikiversity. We began with the core theory. Then Hillgentleman said we should apply the theory to case studies from Wikipedia, to see what Best Practices are suggested by the underlying theory. But the minute we began to construct the case studies, all hell broke loose; Wikiversity was invaded by a horde of corrupt editors from Wikipedia, who utterly trashed the project.

I don't think reform of a the curriculum of a "university" should center on a class about the university itself. A would encourage you to look to the various language learning websites websites as models. They make extensive use of various social media tools (discussion forums, skype, voice chat, text chat) and actually have a "communities" that are interested in acquiring knowledge and helping others do the same, not just "community" as an entitlement to tell other what to do. Most of these sites have no user overhead at all in terms of governance. The only reason for users to show up is to learn and to help other users learn. I've looked at some of the language material on WV and it is pathetic in comparison to LiveMocha or Babel. More time is spent complaining about competing systems of "enrollment" than learning at WV.

Also not a Wiki in sight at those language learning sites.

[pietkuip]

I don't think reform of a the curriculum of a "university" should center on a class about the university itself.
...
I've looked at some of the language material on WV and it is pathetic in comparison to LiveMocha or Babel. More time is spent complaining about competing systems of "enrollment" than learning at WV.

Also not a Wiki in sight at those language learning sites.

Interesting links.

I am trying to get my university to join iTunes University; it reaches a much larger crowd than WV, and the level is much higher.

[Moulton]

I dunno if Adambro has taken the time to read this thread, which Rootology started a year and a half ago, but it demonstrates that when Jimbo intervenes in Wikiversity with a highly irregular out-of-process block, the ramifications can reverberate for a long time.

[Zoloft]

I dunno if Adambro has taken the time to read this thread, which Rootology started a year and a half ago, but it demonstrates that when Jimbo intervenes in Wikiversity with a highly irregular out-of-process block, the ramifications can reverberate for a long time.

Lives of petty men remind us
We can seek our fools sublime
And regretting, leave behind us
Buttprints on the sands of time

[Milton Roe]

But should a teacher explain a metaphor?

No!! Teachers should only be permitted to explain similes. Metaphors they should always leave to stand undefended, as obvious lies which are also true.

For education's sake.