Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! Options

[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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 30th September 2008, 10:30pm

[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!).

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: Wed 1st October 2008, 9:30am

[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.