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.

Salmon, Salmon, everywhere. Nor any Cop to think.


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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.



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.

Me too.

Howsabout:


Jon

My objectives have been posted for well over a year.

Here they are again, for the mouse-click impaired...


If you wish to learn through the medium of play, I am prepared to employ play-based methods of science education.


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.


Those who were bamboozled by him care.

You: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)



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.






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.

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?

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.

Pathetic? Assanine? Accurate retort?

AWESOME!!!

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.

And more nonsense and evasion. Will your own Po Mo Theater end if Somey takes your final tiny stage from you?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tar pit?

Only if Moulton goes head first.

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?

Rooty, I like you normally, but you may want read your own signature and go for a walk or something; you are abnormally flustered.

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:

Is mocking Moulton more or less childish than blocking him? Discuss.

More, and certainly more visible in the short term as well, but we also have to make it clear that we're not letting Moulton continue to post here because we actually take him seriously, or subscribe to any of his quasi-academic notions of how online communities should operate.

I mean, I could have just said that outright, but I've always found that direct statements are a bit less effective than sarcasm.

I apologize for the ad hominem attacks that I've made.

-mikeu

Inherit the Windmills

When it comes to quixotic quests, perhaps none is more intractable than nudging a hopelessly dysfunctional system in the Bokononic direction of enlightenment.

A year ago, Dave Souza had reminded me of Augustine, who is notable for having introduced the term "Original Sin" into the conversation. Of course, being a systems scientist rather than a theologian, I'm more inclined to analyze ''systemic errors'' rather than reckon anything as mortifying as "Original Sin." Still, it occurred to me that Augustine might have been on to something, so I took a closer look at what he was blathering on about with all of that godspeak.

Turns out a few of those pioneering oligarchs (e.g. Solon and Hammurabi, among others) had introduced a tragic logic error into their calculus. Rather than call it "Original Sin," I'd rather call it "Hammurabi's Original Logic Error" or "Humankind's Original Logic Error." Either way, the acronym comes out HOLE, so that one can smile and say that those who embrace their flawed paradigm have a HOLE in their head.

But I digress. It's difficult to do peer-reviewed original research in the field of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology, so one is obliged to follow the lead of Umberto Eco. Eco said, "Whereof we cannot make a theory, we must tell a story instead." And I say, even if we ''can'' make a theory, we damn well better present it as a story anyway, since theory tends to make most people's eyes glaze over. Alas, I suck at storycraft, which is why I like to hang out around journalists. Mebbe some of their gift will rub off on me someday.

Meanwhile, I struggle with a compromise somewhere between scientific essay writing and amateurish comic opera. I figure it can only get better, cuz it can't get much worse.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down

Midi: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Barsoom Tork is my name, and I rode on the paintball train,
Til so much rivalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the fall of skandalon, we were rollin, just trollin for bait.
I took the train to Wiki, that hell, it was a time I remember, oh so well.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

Back with SBJ at Epiphany, and one day he said to me,
"Moulton, quick, come see, a-there goes Guillaume on a spree!"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if Jimbo's no good.
Just take what ya need and efface the rest,
But they should never have wiped out the very best.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

Like my father before me, I'm a working man,
And like Awbrey before me, I took a rebel stand.
Well, he was just pissed off, proud and brave,
But the God-King laid him in his grave,
I swear by the verse below my feet,
You can't raise the Torkel back up when it's in defeat.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

CopyClef 2007-2008 Joan Baez and Barsoom Tork Associates.

Moulton 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Moulton is bad as much as annoying and counter-productive in most cases. His arrogance is the main reason he's lost most of his allies at WV. Up until recently, I have described myself as sympathetic to his position, but that's ended.

Moulton has demonstrated that he can not move beyond his self-centered obsession with getting back at those who he feels wronged him on WP, and, in the process, being recognized as "right". He states what would be reasonable goals, but does not act on them. He makes creative excuses for his bad behavior in seeking revenge, but those excuses do not stand up to scrutiny, so he has been increasingly dishonest with those who point out that his behavior does not mesh with his stated goals. I can start working through links if you really want them, but it would take some time, as he tends to do little things to test the limits of what he can get away with, rather than clearly and blatantly cross the line.

Please support the above thesis, H1, with solid evidence, sound reasoning, and coherent analysis, and then kindly submit it to scholarly peer review in accordance with the protocols of Scholarly Ethics.

What experiments have you done (or propose to do) to falsify H1, in accordance with the protocols of the Scientific Method of Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing?

I was expecting you to post the same old nonsense. I've adjusted my "thesis" regarding you in the past, and will do so again if you prove me wrong. However, you're not going to do that by making increasingly lame excuses for your behavior. Come on, that article doesn't describe anything remotely close to what you're doing.

Science doesn't work that way, Sxeptomaniac. Your name implies skepticism. In science, one treats every thesis with healthy skepticism — especially one's own pet theories. And then a diligent and conscientious scientist tries like the devil to disprove his hypothesis. What experiments have you done, per the protocols of the scientific method, to falsify your thesis?

Without that exercise, Sxeptomaniac, your thesis sinks like a millstone for lack of evidence, analysis, and reasoning.

I accept your apology, Mike.

But please note that binding, gagging, kicking, and locking someone up in the janitorial hall closet is also an ad hominem (or is it ad avatarum?) attack.

Have you decided yet to stand down from your hostile actions against me?

Specifically, have you decided yet to stand down from this action (on my Wikiversity talk page) rather than respond to questions about it:


More than one day has elapsed. Where is the review, Mike?

I urge you, for your own emotional well-being, Mike, to eschew and discontinue the sociopathic practice of engaging in non-consensual acts of bondage, discipline, kicking, and gagging of authentic scholars affiliated with well-established institutions of higher learning. I do not appreciate being treated as if I were one of Jimbo's Bomis Boyz™ fetish objects.

Well even what you've said here is remarkably vague. I dunno- maybe if, like me (and it appears, Moulton in the past), you've had all sorts of **** slung at you (false accusations to the point of defamation which can ruin you in the real world, misrepresenting your position - with the same possible effect, locking out, deliberate gerrymandering, the odd veiled obscenity, ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ) on wikipedia - AND IT'S BEEN DEEMED PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR by 'the community' - you can't help wondering what terrible things Moulton has been doing to generate the responses he has (as the bar has apparently been set so high!)

But evidence of these heinous wrongdoings are still not forthcoming.

Which leads me to believe that we're dealing with a case of the same old same old at Wikipedia (whether it's WV or whatever) - power games, preciousness, a MASSIVE difficulty in sustaining rational debate and a tendency to resort to logical fallacy (a common problem with all discourses maybe- but one which appears to have become magnified on Wikipedia due probably to the influence of certain key people and their ways- it seems to have become part of the culture there).

I cannot understand why Moulton would even want to continue engaging with WP in any of its forms, frankly. But he does, it appears, like many of you. He seems to think Wikipedia can be 'fixed'. I would completely disagree, and could write my own thesis on why (as could a number of us on here, I suspect.) It looks increasingly that Moulton irritates people by his trains of thought and style of writing- but THIS IS NOT WRONGDOING per se, and could apply to many of us.

I remain sceptical as to the extent of his 'wrongdoings' because the bar for 'bad' behaviour remains so high on Wikipedia. Unless Moulton is engaging in misrepresenting others's arguments, engaging in various other ad hominem fallacies against people, defaming, calling people names, inciting others to attack people or gang up to suppress their contribution, deliberate gerrymandering, using the system to gain power over others, the case against him looks weak.

If you meet the Buddha in Cyberspace, off him.

There isn't any case against me, just as there was no case against Socrates, Archimedes, Jesus, Becket, Galileo, Darwin, Lavoisier, Galois, Thoreau, Gandhi, or King.

Given how easy it was for the community of the day to take down those luminaries (who made profoundly substantive contributions to the advance of civilization), is there any mystery about how easy it is for 21st century cyberspace characters in animal costumes to repeat the same hoary old script in the banal constructed realities of the Internet?

Of course they are gonna take me down any way they can. Why wouldn't they? It's the oldest script in the annals of human history. Just ask Rene Girard, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, or Salman Rushdie.

It's just a banal reprise of the script of the Passion Play, a drama that reruns endlessly down through the ages.

Scapegoat dramas date back some 4000 years, and arise primarily because of a systemic flaw in the architecture of civilization itself — a flaw introduced when humans first began to plant crops and herd cattle and sheep some 10,000 years ago. The organizational flaw has long been recognized and remarked about. The oldest remark about it that I know of is found in Genesis 2:17 (although that early diagnosis understandably fails to suggest a better remedial practice).

Today, we have better insights into the solution to the original flaw in the architecture of human culture, but there is still no known way to explain it to the public, because it requires a college level education in mathematics to appreciate it.

And we all know how much math teachers are reviled.

When I was a grad student at Stanford, one of the math teachers there was murdered by a failing student.

It was a shocking occurence, but it reminded me that it is customary in human culture to murder our best teachers.

I'm hardly the best science educator on the net. I'm well-known for being hopelessly inept at promoting science in cyberspace.

All the more reason for them to wipe out Moulton the Schmeggegy Scientist.

So why not? Cats have nine lives, but Caprice has way more than that.

I'm a little confused as to what you're accusing me of. You seem to be conflating Moulton's problems at WP with his at WV. I know I'm not the only one that felt he was treated unfairly during his original experience on WP, but condemn his behavior on WV.

Look, I'm not interested in power games. I just work on a few projects now and then because it interests me. All I want is for people not to make that more difficult than necessary, and will support the ability for others to do the same (within reason). I tried to help Moulton before he was even blocked the first time on WP. As a result of opposing those editors and associating with Moulton, I've been attacked and lied about.

I attempted to help him on WP, but that doesn't mean I was going to unconditionally support him in his attempt to turn the WV Ethics project into a platform for a feud. Take, for example, his supposed "case study", in which he argues his case, complete with a hyperbolic reference to Kristalnacht. That's not what case studies are for. I agreed that it should be removed as inappropriate for the project, and gave specific criteria for what a case study would need to look like when Moulton complained. However, Moulton continued to complain about my removal without giving a single reason why it should be considered a case study after all.

Perhaps you'd like a couple of examples of how Moulton played power games himself? It seems he was perfectly fine with shutting down discussion through rude behavior and sheer verbosity.

It's not about helping me. It's about fixing the system that chews people up and spits them out. Such systems are hardly unique. They are ubiquitous in human culture.

What's interesting about cyberspace cultures (especially Wikis) is that there is a fairly complete historical record that can be studied to diagnose what is going haywire. What annoys me is when someone (who may well be haywire themselves) comes along and "frags" the study or oversights crucial portions of it.

When it comes to power, there is but one kind of power I recognize, and that is the power of knowledge. Knowledge is free for the taking by anyone and everyone. It warms the cockles of my heart when people acquire authentic knowledge, well-grounded in the scientific method of knowledge construction. It disturbs me when people seek political power (over the affairs of others) whilst in a state of obliviousness, mistrust, apprehension, anxiety, and antipathy. I challenged the editors of IDCab precisely because they sought to exercise political power whilst propagating trivially disprovable falsehoods about a hundred scientists, academics, and researchers. So they sought to bind, gag, marginalize, silence, and block me. What else is new? That kind of shenanigans has been going on since the dawn of recorded history. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

What fascinates me is the unsolved problem of introducing ethical practices into human culture. Aesop tried to do that with his simple fables. Moses tried to do that with his Ten Commandments. Hillel and Jesus tried to do that with their innovative teaching methods. Fyodor Dostoevsky, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, and CS Lewis tried to do with their novels. I'm engaging with online cultures to see whether there is a shred of hope for humankind on the Ethics Frontier.

Today at MIT, Dan Ariely gave a talk. Much of it was about his research on cheating. It was a long talk and he covered a lot of ground, but one disturbing conclusion emerged at the end. According to Dan, there is a fraction of the population who are unethical to the point of sociopathy, and there is no known practice for redeeming them. And yet they consistently rise to positions of power and influence in our culture.

There is something very fishy about this purported translation.

Please see this website, which has adopted both the name and the philosophy of Orenda. That's the origin of the interpretation I have long used for the Orenda Project.

Whoa there! I haven't accused YOU of anything. I've said why the WHOLE case against Moulton looks weak. You've provided rambling diffs it would take me far too long to read- what are the actual EXAMPLES of ad hominem, 'lies', using power abusviely etc. I referred to in my earlier post?

Verbosity and hyperbole cannot form part of this case of wrongdoing- as I said before, there'd have to be a mass cull if this was the case (and you and I would be in the queue to get offed- as well as most of WR, WP and Guardian Journalists, to name just a few).

Moulton- please don't think I'm sitting in judgement of you either- I don't like how this is turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt against you frankly.

And just to be clear- I AM talking about the sitch at WV- which is part of the WMF, is it not? There's a whole new potential thread that could be formed on whether a Jim Wales venture (even an ostensible 'academic' one) is going to run into the same problems as WP per se in terms of culture and power games in the production of knowledge- a ubiquitous problem, yes: but as we have seen before, Wikipedia projects have specific problems in these areas.

Unkenschnupfen


Over on Wikiversity, JWSchmidt has likened the rantings of others there to a McCarthy era "red scare" — which had also been compared to the "witch hunts" of American Colonial History.

Since I've lived in Boston for the past 20 years, I've been to the historic sites in Salem where the Witch Trials took place. Their significance in American history is not lost on me. And while I was only a youth when Senator Joseph McCarthy was on his anti-communist tirade in the 1950s, the lessons of that shameful passage in American History are still fresh in my mind.

On Wikiversity, I've called for a scholarly peer review of the unseemly management practices introduced there by Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales, in contravention of fundamental principles of an academic culture.

Perhaps the practice of blocking good faith editors on Wikipedia is too deeply entrenched in the culture there to question the propriety of that bizarre regulatory practice, but Wikiversity is a different matter and a different culture.

To my mind, it is sophomorish and tacky to be binding, gagging, kicking, and locking up academic faculty and visiting scholars in the janitorial hall closet whilst skipping out on the authentic educational lessons at hand.

I urge people to take a closer look at Wikiversity, because I believe it exposes the seamy underbelly and Achilles heel of the Bomis Boyzâ„¢ B&D Culture that Jimbo built.

Yeah the diffs are long long and rambling. That's exactly why I wasn't thrilled about digging through things. You're requesting evidence of behavior that has little to do with why Moulton was blocked from WV, despite Jimbo's misleading "incivility" reason when the block was placed. Moulton did attack editors a few times using real names, but most of those were oversighted, so I can't link to them. However, those were really more of the straws that broke the camel's back, rather than the sum total of the reason for the block.

You and I apparently have different ideas about what constitutes problem behavior. You list a few specific behaviors, while I've given a principle. Moulton was abusing the project for his own purposes, and refused to moderate his rather obnoxious behavior. That's why he was blocked. Centaur of Attention was blocked for pretty much the same reasons.

Her contention seems to be that while others get away with things that are worse, nobody should be blocked for such "lesser" offenses as Moulton.

I should probably state that while I agree with Sxeptomaniac's position, as well as Rootology's, about Moulton's recent behavior, there are a few things that aren't being stated here, and they really should be.

The main one is that, quite simply, "Wikiversity" is a terrible idea that should never even have been conceived of in the first place. It's a far, far worse idea than Wikipedia; everything about it is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'd also like to point out that I recognized this almost immediately, even going so far as to parody it, and nothing I've seen since has given me the slightest reason to think I was wrong in my initial assumptions.

In addition, most of the "sub-projects" of the WMF, such as Wikiversity, are much less populated with dedicated/committed editors than Wikipedia. The number of WV admins is what, 20 or so? It's much easier for someone with energy, determination, and lots of time on their hands to dominate a smaller site, particularly since MediaWiki gives admins so few effective tools to deal with people who do those kinds of things. As I've stated many times, even relatively low-tech boardware like the system we use here on WR has vastly greater capability for protecting itself against people like Moulton than any MediaWiki-based site has. It isn't even close! What all this ultimately means, IMO, is that the people running Wikiversity are likely to be incredibly frustrated when presented with the sort of personal and logistical challenge that Moulton represents.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Moulton's activities on Wikiversity may actually be the sort of "necessary evil" that's required to (eventually?) help turn Wikiversity into the ghost-town it deserves to be, but that's obviously hard cheese on the people who participate there in "good faith" - many of whom are the sort of decent, well-meaning, perhaps-even-altruistic folks that make up roughly half of the Wikipedia community. But (in case you wanted more cliches) if Wikipedia is trying to make stone soup, Wikiversity is trying to make a silk purse out of a really ugly sow's ear.

That doesn't mean Moulton has to come to WR and broadcast a play-by-play of everything he's doing to make those peoples' online lives miserable, though. That's the part I really object to, in case I hadn't made that clear enough from the outset.

Do you then agree that Jimbo's charge of "incivility" was bogus?


I did refer to KillerChihuahua by her real name. How is that an attack? I called upon her to abide by the protocols of scholarly ethics when editing within the Ethics Project. Reminding a new editor at Wikiversity of the applicable protocols for scholarly studies is hardly an attack.


The purpose of the project was to introduce the principles of ethical reasoning, and to demonstrate the application of ethical reasoning to authentic ethical conundrums as they arise from time to time in WMF-sponsored projects.

Do you consider the construction of educational resources related to Media Ethics, and constructing innovative solutions to real-time ethical conundrums to be "obnoxious behavior"?