Will no one rid Wikimedia of this meddlesome hypothesis?, Odd Socracy questions Wikiversity's ad hoc Ochlocracy. Options

[Lar]

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

[mikeu]

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

His talk page protection was in response to an edit containing personal information which required oversight.

-mikeu

[Angela Kennedy]

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

You can disagree all you like. I disagree with most of the reams you've written on WR since you've been active. I have openly disagreed with Moulton as well. But I wouldn't call him a 'dick' because resorting to ad hominem- even Wikipedia super-duper 'policy' enabling ad hominem- means one's argument is doomed through faulty logic.

I have no real idea what Moulton's 'crimes' are frankly. I see reams and reams of ad hominem attack (the 'you're a dick you're a dick' 12 inch extended disco version from Mikeu being one of the more recent)- but as to what actually has happened- not clear! Your above statement- sounds good- means little, as it is out of any meaningful context for those of us not of the Wiki way.

This is an occupational hazard of Wikipedia - lines and lines of wikispeak and rhetorical devices full of various logical fallacies on the talk pages- little of substance- very little of rational debate. I've tried to engage in rational debate before on there- all to no avail- because ad hominem prevails on there mostly.

I do know that the idea of a 'Wikiversity', based on my own experiences as an academic on Wikipedia and how I was treated- fills me with concern, not to mention the implications of Jimbo Wales or the WMF producing 'academic' knowledge- knowing what I now know about the set-up, and its place in the larger issue of power and conflict in how knowledge is produced. But, one would hope, if Wikiversity is a community of academics, things would be slightly more convivial- but from this interchange I've witnessed- it seems not.

But my primary concern here was the 'you're a dick' refrain - terrible way to try and construct your adversary- and the 'you secretly enjoy it' speculation- awful. The one thing I do notice- Moulton does NOT appear to be engaging in the same level of ad hominem, at least here on WR.

This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy: Sun 28th September 2008, 4:16pm

[Moulton]

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

Yes, please.

Let's have a scholarly peer review of that extraordinary hypothesis of mine, namely that Jimbo brought into Wikiversity his Bomis Boyz™ B&D Fetish Culture.

Is everyone here aware of that thesis?

I was heaving buckets of stomach acid from the incivility, as was Erkan. JWS also said, on more than one occasion he was sick to his stomach.

If involving yourself with this stuff is actually making you physically ill, then perhaps it's time to withdraw yourself from it, turn off your computer, and go away from anything to do with it. That's probably what your doctor would advise you.

What made me physically ill was SBJ's blocking of JWS last Friday night.

Now playing: Dolly Parton - 9 to 5 via FoxyTunes

Precisely so. The final scene of that movie illustrates the B&D Fetishism that Jimbo's Bomis Boyz™ Culture introjects into Wikimedia. (For the worst of it, see David Shankbone.)

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

His talk page protection was in response to an edit containing personal information which required oversight.

-mikeu

What personal information? You have made that claim, but where is the evidence, analysis, or independent review of your specious claim?

Oh for goodness sake - I did say 'quasi' Freudian. Also- I'M not applying quasi-Freudian analysis here- I'm saying mikeu is. And it's irritating, and poor argument.

And I clearly disagree.

Now, if you want to discuss a quasi Freudian topic, we could easily bring up Moulton's claims that Wikiversity was a BDSM group that sought to put him into intellectual bondage. The ramifications of that statement are astounding.

You can disagree all you like. I disagree with most of the reams you've written on WR since you've been active. I have openly disagreed with Moulton as well. But I wouldn't call him a 'dick' because resorting to ad hominem- even Wikipedia super-duper 'policy' enabling ad hominem- means one's argument is doomed through faulty logic.

I have no real idea what Moulton's 'crimes' are frankly.

I have no idea either. It occurs to me that the recurring practice is to make a "bad block" and then hope the resulting confusion will yield no consensus to overturn the block. At this point, it takes Jimbo Wales himself to make the controversial block, on the presumption that no one has the cojones to tell Jimbo to go jump in the lake.

[Milton Roe]

Personally, I can't think of much reason to block somebody's personal TALK page except to irritate them.

I can think of lots of good reasons but they all revolve around posting things there that wouldn't be allowed to be posted elsewhere... such as revealing personally identifiable information of others without their consent, or spamming, or making legal threats, or any of a number of other things.

As I once explained to Brad "NutlessWonder" Patrick, a filed lawsuit itself is a merely a threat, since most are frivolous and will never make it past early pro-forma request for dismissal. A direct threat of a lawsuit is a threat of a threat. Why it makes WP so crazy is not clear to me. In Hollywood they say: "Sue me, baby" and shrug. Wikipedia, like all large organizations, must do the same.

The NLT policy actually started as a fairly natural "request" (later enforced) that people engaged in ACTUAL lawsuits with WMF stop editing WP. It then evolved into a kind of perverted hairtrigger thing wherein anybody even mentioning lawsuits can be banhammered by anybody passing by who sees that they aren't an administrator. Thus, you can now get indef blocked for mentioning the possibility that there are grounds for somebody to make a threat of threat. Ask how I know. And damn, that's a stupid policy, allowed to exist by asses.

As for the other arguments, of course I accept them myself and will admit them as qualifiers to what I said before. But YOU can't have them and claim the BLP problem is a non-issue, or that sec 230 is always going to protect WP. Are you seriously going to try to explain to me that WP doesn't add any extra notoriety and ease-of-access to information that is already publically available in other ways (since anybody can post the same on their blog or somebody else's blog), or that even when nonpublic info gets posted on WP that you feel yourselves under a terrible MORAL imperitive to take it down? That you cry large, fat tears over people having information on themselves published on WP that they don't want published?

Cause if you are, here's this in advance:

[Milton Roe]

His talk page protection was in response to an edit containing personal information which required oversight.
-mikeu

And you said: "You can't do that" and he said "I'll do it if I want"? Or was there some level of misunderstanding, as when Bagley didn't understand the rules about how username aliases are more zealously protected on WP than is BLP defamation (many fewer oversights there).

I seem to remember that Moulton thought somebody's actual name was already public knowledge? If it was not, are you accusing him of doing a Brandt style super-sleuth to find it out? And if that is so, why has he not posted and reposted it in any of his own multiple blogs, as Brandt does? If the guy intended "outing-harm," methinks there would be a lot more harm from him out there for you to point to, and not on WP where could oversight it.

So provide me a link, or else admit your case reeks. Jimbo formally blocked Moulton for "incivility." If he had a strong case for a higher crime, he would have used it. So don't BS me.

Tell you what: if I see links of Moulton abusing personal info in his blogs, of a type which you have every reason to think he'd continue on his TALK page if he were unblocked on WP, then I'll admit defeat in this argument, and switch to YOUR side. Fair enough?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Sun 28th September 2008, 5:41pm

[Moulton]

Here is what Mike found so egregious he had to oversight it and lock down my talk page.

Wikiversity Follies

This post has been edited by Moulton: Mon 29th September 2008, 12:17am

[mikeu]

CODE

17:42        Started talking with Moulton on Monday 09/29/08 05:42:19 PM
    Moulton    Mike, please do not tamper with evidence submitted by an adversarial editor.
    Moulton    You may challenge the evidence of an adversarial editor, but it is a violation of protocol to tamper with it.
21:14    Moulton    And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
    Moulton    And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Moulton    And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
    Moulton    And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
    Moulton    But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
21:19    mikeu    You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
21:49    Moulton    It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
21:51    mikeu    it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
    Moulton    It's from Genesis 2:17.
21:52    Moulton    Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
21:53    mikeu    no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
    Moulton    I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
21:54    mikeu    you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
21:55    Moulton    And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
    Moulton    The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
    mikeu    are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
21:56    Moulton    There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
    Moulton    Do you know what the statistic is?
    mikeu    21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
21:57    Moulton    You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
21:58    mikeu    stop contacting me
    Moulton    The lessons may, at one time, originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
21:59    mikeu    "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

[Jon Awbrey]

CODE

Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________

Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal

Jon

[Milton Roe]

CODE

Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________

Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal

Jon

WP:OR

[Jon Awbrey]

CODE

Socrates Is A Man
All Men Are Mortal
_________________________

Ergo, Socrates Is Mortal

Jon

WP:OR

Thou Shalt Surely Die.

Jon

[Moulton]

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

Mike, an excellent way to get to know me is to interfere with the learning processes underway in these interlocking venues of cyberspace.

Did you expect me to roll over and play dead when you shot me down with your JimboBlaster Blocking Pistol?

You may think we are playing Cowboys and Indians or Cops and Robbers, but if so, you are sadly mistaken.

If you engage me by disrupting a scholarly conversation with other scholars, you can surely expect me to take exception to that practice.

Nor am I a fetish object for you to toy with. If you want to play bondage and discipline games, obtain consent from those whom you propose to bind and gag. I may not be as talented as Houdini, but if you put a straitjacket on me, you can expect me to wriggle out of it and resume functioning as an educator as long as there remains one person on this planet who cares to learn how to solve problems with their brains instead of with the unbecoming methods of Machiavelli.

[Angela Kennedy]

CODE

17:42        Started talking with Moulton on Monday 09/29/08 05:42:19 PM
    Moulton    Mike, please do not tamper with evidence submitted by an adversarial editor.
    Moulton    You may challenge the evidence of an adversarial editor, but it is a violation of protocol to tamper with it.
21:14    Moulton    And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
    Moulton    And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Moulton    And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
    Moulton    And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
    Moulton    But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
21:19    mikeu    You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
21:49    Moulton    It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
21:51    mikeu    it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
    Moulton    It's from Genesis 2:17.
21:52    Moulton    Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
21:53    mikeu    no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
    Moulton    I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
21:54    mikeu    you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
21:55    Moulton    And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
    Moulton    The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
    mikeu    are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
21:56    Moulton    There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
    Moulton    Do you know what the statistic is?
    mikeu    21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
21:57    Moulton    You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
21:58    mikeu    stop contacting me
    Moulton    The lessons may, at one time, originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
21:59    mikeu    "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

In what context was the phrase "thou shalt surely die" used?

[Moulton]

Mike Umbricht (in concert with Emesee and Ottava Rima) has again blocked 260,000 IPs in Greater Boston...

range block log

User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a decision to delete. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by User:Emesee and User:Ottava_Rima per the decision at the WV:RFD. This edit waring continued for nearly one hour and culminated in the range blocks listed below. The range blocks are wider than what they needed to be to, and will need to be narrowed if we decide to continue the blocks after the 24 hours expires. This range blocking is a rather extreme response, but the anon edits were causing disruption and IMO needed to be stopped. Please comment below. --mikeu talk 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

141.154.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Emesee 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone find out a way to prevent subpage creation off of a certain user name? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

68.162.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

68.163.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

68.160.0.0/16 has been blocked. --mikeu talk 05:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These ip ranges have been blocked for excessive attempts by a user to evade an existing block. Any attempts to recreate the deleted pages may be blanked, rolled back or reverted by anyone, or deleted by a custodian. We should discuss a more permanent arrangement to prevent this abuse, disruption and harassment from continuing before these blocks expire. --mikeu talk 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• See comments posted at Moulton Lava. —Moulton 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• In addition to activity from the above ips, there are also other incidents that we might want to consider in this discussion. First, there is Moulton 2DFS (now indef blocked) who has made edits that required oversight. Additionally, there were other anon ips, outside the ranges listed above, that engaged in an edit war over Moulton's edits. One anon has been removing the edits, and at least one other has been reinserting them. By continuing to allow one blocked user to edit anonymously we are now getting edit wars that are spreading. This has even disrupted our attempts to follow policy, as indicated by the need to protect pages. --mikeu talk 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• Block the range for a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
  
• I'm relatively certain that Moulton 2DFS is completely unrelated, though it's likely that the person has been reading "Wikipedia Review". We'll look into it with the CU tools when we have them. 71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the user has had prior encounters with Moulton. I strongly advise against any further rangeblocks until the office has confirmed Emesee's identity, because the IP ranges involved are used in a densely populated region with a large number of colleges and universities. The most important advantage of having the CU tools is to ensure that we are accurate in our blocking, and hopefully we'll have them within the next day or two. --SB_Johnny talk 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• See also: contribs from 71.202.65.147 at beta. My main concern is that the edit wars are attracting more participants. Should a narrower range block be put in place for one more day when the 24 hours expires to give some time to do a CU? --mikeu talk 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  
• ...

But the part that perplexes me is why the custodians, led by Sebmol, would go on a rampage destroying pages of literature on Wikiversity...

# 04:23, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Caprice" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:23, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:22, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:22, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Montana Mouse" ‎ (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=prev&oldid=342396)
# 04:15, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton/Albatross" ‎ (Nonsense, spam or vandalism)
# 04:15, 5 October 2008 Sebmol (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Albatross" ‎ (Nonsense, spam or vandalism)

Why would anyone want to destroy literature on Wikiversity?

That makes no sense to me.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sun 5th October 2008, 6:48pm

[Moulton]

71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the user has had prior encounters with Moulton.

Well, la de da. Our mystery gumshoe from Pleasanton CA turns out to be none other than FeloniousMonk himself. Evidently he recently switched from PacBell DSL out of Pleasanton to Comcast. Who else would leave his Google Toolbar monitoring my web pages, both at his office and at home?

[Piperdown]

CODE

17:42        Started talking with Moulton on Monday 09/29/08 05:42:19 PM
    Moulton    Mike, please do not tamper with evidence submitted by an adversarial editor.
    Moulton    You may challenge the evidence of an adversarial editor, but it is a violation of protocol to tamper with it.
21:14    Moulton    And JMWH planted a site on the web called WP; and there he put the editors whom he had made.
    Moulton    And out of software JMWH caused to grow every template and userbox that is pleasant to the sight, and good for information and fun. The Wiki of Administrative Bits was in the midst of the encyclopedia, and the Wiki of the philosophy of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Moulton    And JMWH took the editor, and put him into the encyclopedia to dress it and to keep it.
    Moulton    And JMWH commanded the editor, saying, Of every philosophy of the Wiki thou mayest freely eat:
    Moulton    But of the philosophy of the knowledge of civility and incivility thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
21:19    mikeu    You should be very carefull to avoid phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." That sounds potentially threatening.
21:49    Moulton    It's from Genesis. Are you familiar with that story?
21:51    mikeu    it is not a quote from Genesis. Your theatrics have crossed the line and are now disturbing
    Moulton    It's from Genesis 2:17.
21:52    Moulton    Do you know why the author of Genesis put in those words?
21:53    mikeu    no it is not, but more importantly you are sending me messages that include phrases about death and that is unacceptable
    Moulton    I'm not making this material up, Mike. It's been in the culture since the dawn of civilization.
21:54    mikeu    you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    Do you know how many people a year die as a result of not heeding the warning in Genesis 2:17? The statistics are not hard to come by.
21:55    Moulton    And this is not theology I am speaking of. This is scientific sociology.
    Moulton    The theology got there first, but science has since caught up.
    mikeu    are you suggesting that i will die if "do not head the warning" ?
21:56    Moulton    There is a statistical increase in deaths from not heeding the warning.
    Moulton    Do you know what the statistic is?
    mikeu    21:54 mikeu you need to stop contacting me
    Moulton    You need to stop disrupting the learning process. It's unbecoming, unseemly, unscholarly, and unethical to disrupt the learning process.
21:57    Moulton    You may not like the lessons, but they are not fictitious or mythical. They are well-grounded in science.
21:58    mikeu    stop contacting me
    Moulton    The lessons may, at one time, originated in unscientific stories, but the modern science cannot be ignored.
21:59    mikeu    "stop contacting me" is all I have to say to you

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

In what context was the phrase "thou shalt surely die" used?

It was once used in a "Annoying Baptist Knocking on My Door and Telling Me I'm Going to Burn in Hell" context to me.

Something about whether I accepted the "give 10% of your cash to us and you get into heaven, the other flavours of Jesus you get elsewhere are wrong!" line, then I would never die....as these folks consider their souls immortal if you get on the list. Otherwise you "surely die" instead of just die. Soul-wise. Meanwhile some of the most wonderful people in the world that I know that are Jewish, Atheist, Catholic-Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologists (not really, but that's there just for WP lol), etc are doomed to burn in eternal fires despite making this world a better place before they left it. Well fuck that god and his meatpuppets for that.

But then can you really take those documents seriously after 2000 years of being Babelfished back and forth by scholars with their balls in a royal vice or in need of cash.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 5th October 2008, 7:21pm

[Moulton]

A better question is this one:

What concepts of theology are insightful enough to advance to scientific theory?

What concepts of theology are both insightful enough to advance to theory and rigorously provable enough to make it all the way to theorem?

There is something in that Genesis 2 story with the talking snake that makes it all the way to scientific theory, and even to mathematical theorem.

Can you tease out the part that is now mathematically provable?

Note: You will need some college math. Not a lot of math, but some college math.

[Moulton]

Moulton, I really don't know you and I am not at all sure how to take many of the things that you write.... But you need to understand that I find it disturbing that you are private messaging me and leaving cryptic verses with phrases like "...thou shalt surely die." It is even worse when I explain my concerns and you ignore them.

Do not contact me again.

-mikeu

Mike, an excellent way to get to know me is to interfere with the learning processes underway in these interlocking venues of cyberspace.

Did you expect me to roll over and play dead when you shot me down with your JimboBlaster Blocking Pistol?

You may think we are playing Cowboys and Indians or Cops and Robbers, but if so, you are sadly mistaken.

If you engage me by disrupting a scholarly conversation with other scholars, you can surely expect me to take exception to that practice.

Nor am I a fetish object for you to toy with. If you want to play bondage and discipline games, obtain consent from those whom you propose to bind and gag. I may not be as talented as Houdini, but if you put a straitjacket on me, you can expect me to wriggle out of it and resume functioning as an educator as long as there remains one person on this planet who cares to learn how to solve problems with their brains instead of with the unbecoming methods of Machiavelli.

Mike, please take note of this principle, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:

Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the [WMF] privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the [Wikikpedia Arbitration] Committee.

It occurs to, Mike, me that your "determination" in which you assumed the role of arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner, exceeded both your authority and the protocols of due process.

I therefore urge you to stand down from recent actions and submit the case to fair and impartial community review, including the right of the accused to defend themselves, examine the evidence against them, and to cross-examine any witnesses who have the courage and the integrity to withstand academic peer review.

You have had nearly two weeks to argue your case, and you have failed to prove your claims or to secure a fair determination of the propriety of your actions.

Moreover, your exhortation, "Do not contact me again," is utterly incompatible with the notion of responsibility and accountability in the exercise of unwarranted political power over other scholars who are acting in good faith.

Discriminatory actions such as yours jeopardize the status of WMF as a publicly funded 501(c)(3) non-profit chartered as an educational enterprise.

[Lar]

Mike, please take note of this principle, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:

Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the [WMF] privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the [Wikikpedia Arbitration] Committee.

It occurs to, Mike, me that your "determination" in which you assumed the role of arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner, exceeded both your authority and the protocols of due process.

I do not think that principle means what you think it means. Nor does the privacy policy apply when deciding about whether to remove information that "outs" other editors against their wishes. (for the record your wikiversity block was sound, even if it is not true that "the forms were obeyed"... )

And when exactly will you internalise and move on about "due process"? WMF websites are not a government. Get over it.

[Moulton]

Mike, please take note of this principle, as expressed by the WP Arbitration Committee in the Case of Lar vs. SlimVirgin:

Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the [WMF] privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the [Wikikpedia Arbitration] Committee.

It occurs to, Mike, me that your "determination" in which you assumed the role of arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner, exceeded both your authority and the protocols of due process.

I do not think that principle means what you think it means. Nor does the privacy policy apply when deciding about whether to remove information that "outs" other editors against their wishes. (for the record your wikiversity block was sound, even if it is not true that "the forms were obeyed"... )

And when exactly will you internalise and move on about "due process"? WMF websites are not a government. Get over it.

I get that WMF-sponsored projects are not representative instances of a functional governance structure, Lar.

Now, in my capacity as a student of cyberspace cultures and communities, I'm discovering what the WMF-funded projects really are, given that they clearly are not what I had initially imagined them to be.