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

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

This is just like that climactic scene in the movie Candy where Candy realizes that the "trusted member" belongs to her Daddy.

Jon

[Moulton]

The Blooming Lotus

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.

This is just like that climactic scene in the movie Candy where Candy realizes that the "trusted member" belongs to her Daddy.

Jon

Isn't there a scene (or perhaps only a passage in the book) where the Buddha is covered in muck and mire?

[Jon Awbrey]

Isn't there a scene (or perhaps only a passage in the book) where the Buddha is covered in muck and mire?

Do Muck And Mire Have The Buddha Nature?

Jon

[Dzonatas]

Something has occurred lately where WR admins feel it is ok for them to bring up case studies about anybody, but Moulton and others were told no they can't make case studies. It defeats the purpose why Moulton was blocked!

At first I was worried that they really felt Moulton created attack pages, but they have been doing what Moulton has done.

chaos happens

[Moulton]

Today, Darklama, acting on his own, unblocked User:Moulton on Wikiversity.

Note that this is at best a symbolic gesture, since the global SUL lock is still in effect.

Moulton unblock

I'm just noting that you've locally unblocked User:Moulton: Special:Log/block + Special:Block/Moulton "06:17, 17 July 2010 Darklama (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Moulton (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Not needed with global account lock in place)". Given that the previous WV block was based on a Community Review (Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's block), I think it would be desirable to have a (consolidated) community discussion somewhere about unblocking. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If and when there is a consolidated community discussion about blocking and unblocking, I hope the scholars at Wikiversity will conscientiously consider the analysis of this peer-reviewed essay on the subject.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Fri 16th July 2010, 11:28pm

[ulsterman]

If and when there is a consolidated community discussion about blocking and unblocking, I hope the scholars at Wikiversity will conscientiously consider the analysis of this peer-reviewed essay on the subject.

In what sense is this a peer-reviewed essay? Nobody seems to have commented on it yet. I rush to add that it is a very good essay. Incidentally, the ability of WV editors to have a sensible discussion wil be a good test of whether WV can work for its intended purpose.

[SB_Johnny]

One thing you can say about Moulton and Jimbo: they seem to mean well, but whenever they try, they manage to muck it up somehow. The only difference is that Jimbo manages to be appreciated, and usually constructive. Sorry Moulton, but when you propose a "scholarly examination", I tend to think you're just proposing that we just form a cabal of people who agree with Moulton so we can apply body paint to them and picket time's aquare in the nude until someone writes an article in the Village Voice.

I know you really mean well and care about what you care about, but your tactics are the very epitome of counterproductivity.

Funny to see this thread revived.

[Moulton]

If and when there is a consolidated community discussion about blocking and unblocking, I hope the scholars at Wikiversity will conscientiously consider the analysis of this peer-reviewed essay on the subject.

In what sense is this a peer-reviewed essay? Nobody seems to have commented on it yet. I rush to add that it is a very good essay. Incidentally, the ability of WV editors to have a sensible discussion wil be a good test of whether WV can work for its intended purpose.

Did you click through (at the bottom) to the original P2P.Org site where the essay originally appeared?

[ulsterman]

Did you click through (at the bottom) to the original P2P.Org site where the essay originally appeared?

No. It might have been helpful to post that link instead of (or at least as well as) the one you gave. So I see there have been two comments on it. That's not exactly the same as my idea of a peer review. I envision people with some expertise and qualifications in a subject refereeing a paper, namely pointing out any mistakes or imperfections then saying whether it's worth publishing. I have no idea of the qualifications of those who commented, but it is clear that they were not trying to say whether or not it should be published.

I stress again that it is a good essay, and had it been sent to me for peer review I would have given it a thumbs up. I'm just querying your use of the term.

[Moulton]

Did you click through (at the bottom) to the original P2P.Org site where the essay originally appeared?

No. It might have been helpful to post that link instead of (or at least as well as) the one you gave. So I see there have been two comments on it. That's not exactly the same as my idea of a peer review. I envision people with some expertise and qualifications in a subject refereeing a paper, namely pointing out any mistakes or imperfections then saying whether it's worth publishing. I have no idea of the qualifications of those who commented, but it is clear that they were not trying to say whether or not it should be published.

Did you read the note of Michael Bauwens, the editor/publisher of P2P.Org, who decided to elevate and republish my add-on commentary as a featured essay on the P2P.Org site? Here it is, again...

Banning the Wikipedia bans as a governance tool

This add-on to our comments field is worth upgrading to a full entry. It details another negative aspect of current Wikipedia governance: the practice of indiscriminate banning without due process.

Michel Bauwens, 21st November 2008

I stress again that it is a good essay, and had it been sent to me for peer review I would have given it a thumbs up. I'm just querying your use of the term.

Are you satisfied that the editorial staff at P2P.Org (headed up by Michael Bauwens), culled that essay from the add-on comments to an earlier article, and on his own initiative, promoted it to a featured essay. I had not submitted it to anyone for peer review. For all I know, there doesn't not yet exist a recognized body of subject-matter experts who write on the subject of Wikipedia governance. Perhaps P2P.Org will someday become that recognized body of serious scholars.

[Abd]

recognized[/i] body of subject-matter experts who write on the subject of Wikipedia governance. Perhaps P2P.Org will someday become that recognized body of serious scholars.

Well, I don't know if it meets your standards, but Piotrus, a sociologist and Wikipedia administrator, has published one article under peer review, and I may have seen a draft of a second.

Then they desysopped and blocked him. For ??? It was quite thin, and there was every sign he was trying strongly to act fairly and properly. But he did discuss Wikipedia, are you ready for this, it's shocking!

Off-Wiki! In a private mailing list!

Which was hacked by .... ??? .... ArbComm didn't care about niceties like "illegal evidence," and "privacy," they pounced on it like cat on a mouse.

I think his understanding is a little deeper now. He just gave me a purple barnstar.... Nice touch.

[Moulton]

Yes, Jimbo and his sycophants aren't too thrilled with analytical studies of the design concepts of Wikipedia. You just can't speak the truth to power over there and expect to get away with it.

[Abd]

Yes, Jimbo and his sycophants aren't too thrilled with analytical studies of the design concepts of Wikipedia. You just can't speak the truth to power over there and expect to get away with it.

That's not what happened with Piotrus. He had been naive, and his pieces were written far more from the point of normative wikitheory rather than from the far uglier actual practice.

I watched the case fairly closely, though I was under a three month site ban, it was indeed like watching a lamb being led to the slaughter. He believed in Wikipedia. Didn't protect him.

The "truth to power" thing was far more applicable to my case. Though, perhaps, there is such a thing as "too much truth." I'd always thought that if someone didn't want to read something on a Talk page, they could simply not read it. Well, I knew that wasn't true, but I wanted it to be!

I was looking at the demands and agreements wrested from Thekohser in the Last Days of his Temptation. What was his crime, his violation? Sarcastic edit summaries.

Really? They weren't personal attacks, they were what should have been reasonably protected speech. But sarcastic edit summaries, like "I pledge allegiance to ArbComm," were beyond the pale. This was clearly a community that could not tolerate contempt or ridicule of The Authorities. Thought crime, really. But a member of the cabal could run sarcastic anti-Arbcomm comment continually and what happened? Nothing. He had to get far nastier than that in order to get some negative attention.

Core problem: no community that is actually functional.

I stopped trying at Wikipedia because I noticed something. When I started and I was attacked, there would be editors who would show to say something sensible, at least moderating it. When I would detail my understanding of how the wiki could work better, there would be people who would thank me and help explain it. That stopped happening.

My last block, interesting case. A matter came up before ArbComm and I was pointed, off-wiki, to mention of me by Mathsci, in a way that was highly deceptive and misleading. So ... I put up an explanation, with edit summary, "will self-revert per topic ban." And I reverted it.

One week block for ban violation. For all I know, nobody even noticed the edit except for Hipocrite, who filed the complaint, naturally. Arbitration Enforcement filing

Used to be that several admins would show up to defend me. Was that edit disruptive? Do self-reverted edits violate bans? That is a question that apparently depended on whose ox was being gored. I'm arguing on Wikiversity for what I had thought might actually become policy on Wikipedia at one point, it had an arbitrator's support, and it was discussed and there was no opposition. Until I used it while under a topic ban, and the admin who had previously claimed that it was idiotic to consider a harmless edit a violation, even if the editor was banned from editing the article, proceeded to block me. (He was told later by ArbComm that he should not have made that decision.)

No, they don't violate bans, because they leave no mess to clean up. They do not complicate enforcement. It is as if the editor takes on the enforcement task! Running ban enforcement on a self-reverted edit is more disruptive than simply doing nothing. It's counter-intuitive, but self-reversion is a way for a banned editor to cooperate with a ban, it is not defiant at all. I made the edit to fulfill an obligation to testify, but there is no longer any community to testify to. That edit showed it to me.

Just for reference, the edit itself, and a permanent link to text for ease of reading. It was still long.

Pearls before swine. This was crucial and relevant argument and evidence. When it suited the arbitrators, they introduced evidence from an illegally hacked mailing list (EEML case). But when there is something relevant from a "banned editor," as far as I can see, nobody even looked, except a very adverse party and an administrator who apparently didn't have a clue. No more. I think I discharged my duty. There is no there there. I think Wikipedia is like a shell, still showing a facade, ready to collapse from internal rot, the core is dead, vanished, gone, often with disgust at what Wikipedia became.

[Abd]

If you would prefer, I would undo Jimbo's block, state that he doesn't have the power, and indef you myself.

This is fascinating to look at two years later. Moulton block log, last block is Ottava, doing what he said he would do two years ago.

Certainly, I preferred this, because it converted Moulton's block to a local action, where local consensus could address it. I'm not ready to move there yet, because the much cleaner case of Thekohser is available. And, indeed, Ottava's big complaint about my period of probationary custodianship was that I unblocked Ethical accountability without first having obtained consensus for it.

But policy suggests that custodians can unblock on personal initiative, provided that there was no community consensus establishing the block. There was no such consensus in the case of Thekohser. It's much muddier with Moulton.

As to the hypotheses, I'd not build too much on literal interpretations of what Jimbo says. I know from experience that when Jimbo says, "I've been having conversations with the board," as an example, he can mean as little as talking with one board member. I don't think he was lying about the conversations, but he uses language that is imprecise to convey a desired impression, it's a fairly common habit.

So I conclude from Jimbo's comment that he did indeed talk with one custodian, or possibly with more, at Wikiversity. Given Ottava's comment, it could have been him. He was a new custodian then, as I recall, but I don't know enough of the politics then to speculate more than that. I do see, here, mikeu pop in, could have been him.

I recently concluded that Jimbo was being used as an excuse by at least one Wikiversity custodian, Ottava. Ottava was promoting Fear of Jimbo as a way to solidify and consolidate his personal image of himself as Defender of Wikiversity Against the Threat of Closure.

I considered the reblocking of Moulton/Caprice and Thekohser/Ethical accountability to be progress, because the deflection of responsibility to local custodians, and thus ultimately to local process, was a great step toward an honest assessment of the situation, if that is possible. I believe that cooperation from Thekohser has shown that something is terribly wrong at Wikiversity. Adambro is actually not the problem, JWS has it wrong. The problem is that the community is somnulent, burned out, distracted, or doesn't care. Adambro is incorrect in his interpretations, but, damn!, isn't he something like 20 years old? He's actually doing quite well, considering.

Why has the community concentrated its custodial activity into the hands of mostly Ottava and Adambro, with the less offensive Darklama tossed in? And Jtneill hoping that everyone will be nice and that should fix it all.

Maybe. But it will take more than that. Being nice would be a part of it, or at least pretending to be nice. It's called civility, and it's an ingredient, an important one, in dispute resolution process. First step is to stop the people from calling each other trolls, dicks, dictators, liars, etc.

Hence I blocked Ottava for blatant incivility and watched him come unglued. Response testing, very appropriate and accurately applied. Fully justified by the circumstances, fully justified by his own prior actions with others. Wikiversity policy is astonishingly wimpy, civility policy boiling down to "be nice," with no enforcement, basically good advice, but utterly naive. The result of that? A community that was unable to address civility problems and actually resolve them. A reality of blocked editors being called trolls and being unable to defend themselves, even civilly. And a custodian, Ottava, Mr. Jeffrey Peters, as he has clearly announced to the world, but, hey, block Moulton if he mentions it, who considers himself the prime mover at Wikiversity, the core of the project, who feels completely free to call SB_Johnny a "liar" and free to ignore a clear warning, and then free to hide the resulting block and the self-unblock (that would be grounds for immediate desysop on Wikipedia) from being seen, and the community will do ... what?

Could be nothing. Nothing at all. And as far as I'm concerned, if this is the end of it, the community gets what it deserves. Ottava Rex. I might even keep some space there, but not without backups, and I doubt that I will be bringing in the alternative education people, I would not dare subject them to that.

On the other hand, there are some signs for hope, such as Jtneill's invitation to Moulton to cooperate. It's going to be tough for Ottava et al to stop that. If Moulton picks up on self-reversion, it's all over. They cannot prevent that. Period. Not without making it blatantly obvious what the real agenda is.

(If their real agenda is actually the welfare of Wikiversity, they won't oppose this very safe cooperative procedure. Moulton will or won't sign on because he has a somewhat different agenda than, say, mine,I can't predict. But there remain, so far, some interesting possibilities.)

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 6th August 2010, 1:47am

[Moulton]

The "truth to power" thing was far more applicable to my case. Though, perhaps, there is such a thing as "too much truth."

Do you know that famous line with Jack Nicholson?

I was looking at the demands and agreements wrested from Thekohser in the Last Days of his Temptation. What was his crime, his violation? Sarcastic edit summaries.

One would naively think that contumacious dismissiveness wouldn't lead to bloody hell.

This was clearly a community that could not tolerate contempt or ridicule of The Authorities.

Nor was it the first such example of that kind of intolerance of cheeky petulance.

One week block for ban violation. For all I know, nobody even noticed the edit except for Hipocrite, who filed the complaint, naturally.

Hipocrite is a most fascinating character. He is an expert at playing The Wikipedia Game.

Until Abd is willing to follow his sanctions, he should not be permitted the leniency of editing.

Do you suppose Ottava learned the game from Hipocrite?

[Moulton]

Two years ago, there was a spate of huge range blocks on Wikiversity and on IRC. Here is the documentation about the range blocks on Wikiversity...

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.

There were comparable range blocks on IRC, too.

Now we have a log from that epoch...

Log file opened at: Dec 8, 2008 12:51:06 PM

12:51:06 PM: *** Topic for #wikimedia: Wikimedia Foundation, http://wikimediafoundation.org | Status: Up | No public logging | Chanops: #wikimedia-ops | Stewards: #wikimedia-stewards | Software questions or issues? #mediawiki | Server issues: #wikimedia-tech | Toolserver: #wikimedia-toolserver | It's fundraiser time! Donate now: http://donate.wikimedia.org

12:51:06 PM: *** Topic for #wikimedia set by cary on November 18, 2008 1:26:47 PM

12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: JWSchmidt DragonFire_aw GerardM- WalterBE WaRpAtH shimgray Reedy brianmc GerardM__ predr wing2 AfterDea1h davidstrauss__ Melos chb MarkDilley MrZ-man Mike_lifeguard wpedzich maikmerten Thogo brion hcatlin Wegge _sj| Submarine Prodego Bdka randmontoya Rdsmith4 odder Ainali Schildkroete AzaTht Sundance_Raphael Rjd0060 gribeco toniher ialex Fabexplosive geimfyglid jgay Platonides LeBron Anthere2 Snowolf Majorly MBisanz SonicAD_ yannf Bjelleklang

12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: Mike_H Tiptoety|away p858snake Jhs dungodung fosco shanel werdan7 dircbot nn123645 VasilievVV aib Hosiryuhosi Schroeder jeronim AndrewB GDonato Cobi James_F|Away White_Cat JeLuF fnordus mark brick moogle Rudha-an phuzion tcliou|A1ay pawalls Danny_B ST47 JonathanD Zach__ techman224 domas Elisson christel MZMcBride Donor Atluxity kibble Az1568_ wimt enhydra puzzlet AntiSpamMeta Brownout unilinky hausgeist davy_s truewiki Adrian^L seanw @ChanServ
12:51:06 PM: #wikimedia: sam skenmy Simetrical sj yksinaisyyteni falxx issyl0 felipe_ Martinp23 Versa|gone henrik norm1037 str4nd avatar HardDisk_WP
12:51:06 PM: *** End of /NAMES list.

7:32:24 PM: *** Mike||antispam is now known as Mike_lifeguard

8:07:07 PM: *** WaRpAtH (i=Gambit@wikimedia/Cometstyles) has joined channel #wikimedia

8:49:59 PM: *** Mike_lifeguard_ (n=Mike@wikibooks/mike.lifeguard) has joined channel #wikimedia

6:39:12 PM: Mike_H: Mike||antispam: Why did you block all those IPs in Massachusetts?
6:39:28 PM: Mike||anti: Which ones?
6:39:38 PM: Mike_H: apparently the ones that block a good portion of Boston
6:39:43 PM: Mike_H: on Wikisource or somewhere
6:39:48 PM: Mike||anti: Because of Moulton.
6:39:58 PM: Mike_H: yeah, but you realize that innocent people can't edit that now, right?
6:39:59 PM: Mike_H: like, for good?
6:40:07 PM: Mike||anti: No, it's not indef.
6:40:08 PM: Mike_H: and not like 3 innocent people
6:40:10 PM: Mike_H: like thousands
6:40:23 PM: Mike||anti: Yes, I'm aware of how big the ranges are.
6:40:26 PM: brion: damn bostonians
6:40:28 PM: brion: they had it coming
6:40:54 PM: Mike||anti: Luckily there seems to be no collateral damage. One "perk" of working on tiny projects where nobody edits.
6:41:12 PM: Mike||anti: Mike_H: I assume Moulton is badmouthing me somewhere?
6:41:14 PM: DanielB lols @ brick
6:41:17 PM: DanielB: brion, even...
6:41:27 PM: DanielB: (soz to br/ick)
6:41:31 PM: Mike_H: Mike||antispam: Wikipedia Review, you can go respond there
6:41:43 PM: Mike||anti: Well, I /could/ but I'm not going to.
6:42:03 PM: Mike||anti: Plus that's old news
6:44:19 PM: WaRpAtH: lol brick
6:45:10 PM: WaRpAtH: yeah WR doesn't like Mike already
6:45:13 PM: WaRpAtH: he has his own thread O_O
6:46:27 PM: Mike||anti: I do?
6:46:30 PM: Mike||anti: I'm famous
6:47:19 PM: Mike_H: I don't know
6:47:22 PM: Mike_H: if someone had an issue with me
6:47:24 PM: Mike_H: I'd go clear it up
6:47:28 PM: Mike_H: I mean, why wouldn't you want to?
6:47:32 PM: Mike_H: it's kind of a dumb issue to not clear up
6:48:13 PM: Mike||anti: No, it's Moulton.
6:48:28 PM: Mike||anti: Nobody cares (except him)
6:48:54 PM: Mike||anti: In fact, if he's whining that I've done something wrong it's probably because I've done something right.
6:49:10 PM: Mike_H: um
6:49:11 PM: Mike_H: yeah
6:49:12 PM: Mike_H: you go with that.
6:49:28 PM: Mike||anti: He neglects to mention why the rangeblocks were necessary, I imagine. And that the ones I placed were significantly narrower than the previous ones.
6:49:45 PM: Mike||anti: And that in placing them I actually /checked/ to see whether there would be collateral.
6:49:53 PM: Mike||anti: And so on.
6:52:03 PM: WaRpAtH: [[WP:Nobody cares about Moulton]]

It appears to me that Mike Umbricht, Cometstyles, and Mike.lifeguard were gaming the system in their Game of Tribal Warfare against the tribe with me, Greg, and Privatemusings.

[MZMcBride]

Scandalous.

[EricBarbour]

Scandalous.

Your precious "encyclopedia" is being mismanaged into a state of drivel, and that's all you can say?

Anyone with half his wits would have made a deal with Moulton, because he's obviously a worthy
contributor, and because the way WP is set up, he can always weasel his way into it, regardless of
what those Wiki-Twits do. Evidently Wikipedia is run by people who've lost their Wit Dispensers.