Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! Options

[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.

Other than Jimbo, only Gerard and SlimVirgin have block-exempt bits!?!

# 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: Tue 30th September 2008, 2:17am

[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: Tue 30th September 2008, 4:40pm

[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.

[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: Tue 30th September 2008, 6:21pm

[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!

[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: Tue 30th September 2008, 9:08pm

[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.