User talk:Moulton

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Getting Started[edit]

Hi! --JWSchmidt 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just hanging out my shingle. --Moulton 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moulton. Thanks for your work on the research guidelines. However, since it is in the heart of character of wikiversity, and it may affect many people in several languages, I would suggest that we talk about any change beyond cosmetics before we actually write it down on the actual page. Hillgentleman| 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one that is controversial is the one that relates to possible emotional responses. We need to discuss that, as emotional responses are a function of emotional maturity. Moulton 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Moulton. As there has been doubt on the English Wikiversity on your site "moultonlava" and the matter is still unclear, I have changed your userpage a little. The change affects the printable version:[1] very little. I apologise and hope you understand. And I would like to see the matter clarified. You are welcome if you have questions, comments or suggestions. Hillgentleman| 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's dispel the doubts then. The objective contents are objectively reviewable. Please spell out the doubts. Moulton 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that SB Johnny has claimed that you keep records of ip-addresses of visitors to (some of?) your sites. That is a concern of some wikimedians; and I agree that it would cause privacy problems. I know no other concern. Hillgentleman| 01:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I keep records. Every Apache web server automatically logs all hits. The MuseNet server is just a Sun Ultra in my living room on my Verizon DSL. Like virtually every server process, it writes a log. Some sites process their logs on a regular basis to assess traffic. I don't. But the raw logs are there, and have been (by default) on every Unix machine I've ever run since 1990, when I first began running servers with educational content and projects on them. I rarely have an occasion to look at the logs, because I rarely have episodes of harassment or abuse. But it sometimes happens. I can tell you the examples. There aren't very many. Moulton 02:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton, Have you ever published personal or private information you obtained from your server logs? If you have, then it makes sense to remove external links to your site. --Hillgentleman| 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any personal or private info in server logs. Have you ever seen what's in a typical entry in a server log? It's like Caller ID, or like parking your car in front of someone's house. Many sites, for example, run Webalyzer. Moulton 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En/Development[edit]

As suggested before, I have started a development page on the English research guidelines: Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En/Development. Everybody is welcome to use it to play with ideas! Hillgentleman| 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Neiman on Moral Clarity[edit]

Philosopher Susan Neiman is the guest for the hour today on On Point Radio with Tom Ashbrook. She talks about the search for moral clarity in a day and age when ethical lapses are rampant in our culture. The interview can be heard on streaming audio at the link. Moulton 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton Lava[edit]

Moulton, There are claims that this site "out" wikipedians; I have invited anybody concerned to justify such claims. Feel free to send me an email if you have problems. I have removed the link and locked the page for a week, only keeping the reference to the name of the site. Please accept my advance apologies if you find anything upsetting. Hillgentleman| 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a shred of evidence to support that claim? I expect scholars to support their hypotheses with solid evidence, sound reasoning, and cohererent analysis, and to subject their published claims to scholarly peer review. I call for those making such unsubstantiated and unproven claims to decloak and to submit their claims to scholarly examination and peer review. I am more than upset. I am outraged. I expected better of you, especially since you previously asked me to dispel that very claim. Moulton 03:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in its current form. I have seen you linking wikimedians with real-world people, i.e "outing", but I have not seen any specific example of such outing in that blog, except for the one which you have removed and which you claim was not genuine. However, please understand that
1. It is not desirable if we see wikimedians jump over to engage in an edit war. You have seen what happened on en:.
2. Privacy issues are very real and important; if there is any doubt, I would err on the side of caution. If it turns out that the claim was unsubstantiated, we may add it back later.
3. The current Curriculum Vitae that stands on your userpage is hardly worse than your own edit; anybody can find your site with little trouble if they wanted to.
4. Wikiversity is a community; it would not work if many unhappy faces come here every day. If you can let go of this (in my opinion) minor issue for a while, you would make many people (including yourself) happy - 退一步,海闊天空 (Take one step back, the sea becomes wide and the sky becomes clear.)
5. Most importantly, our work on the research guidelines are far more important. Please do not let this, in my opinion, side-issue distract you from the real work of building wikiversity. The truth will out! Hillgentleman| 16:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), scholars arriving in Wikiversity are expected to leave behind their Wikipedian costumery and their Wikipedian theatrics. I expect scholars here to deport themselves in a scholarly manner.
I expect anyone making a claim of that seriousness to substantiate it with solid evidence, sound reasoning, and rigorous analysis. And I expect them to submit such extraordinary claims to careful examination by disinterested parties. Anything less corrodes the culture of scholarship.
It is unacceptable for anyone to unilaterally alter the C.V. of a bona fide scholar so as to diminish the disclosure of their credentials. If someone wishes to challenge my bona fides, let them decloak and present their challenge in scholarly manner.
Academic cultures are not for everybody. There are many Wikipedians who are not accustomed to engaging in original research wherein one is obliged to defend their theses.
This is not a side issue. If hooligans wearing animal costumes can invade and disrupt the academic classroom at will, then there simply is no academic classroom at Wikiversity, full stop.
Finally, I have a direct and important question for you, Hillgentleman. Can you explain to me why the custodians of Wikiversity have consistently reified H1 rather than refute it?
Moulton 01:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no idea. I am still very confused. Hillgentleman | | 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the findings in our NSF-funded research on the role of emotions in learning is that the affective state of confusion is the single most reliable precursor of an upcoming increment in discovery learning. Or to put it more poetically, "Confusion is the first step toward Enlightenment." The fact that a scholar of your caliber is confused is strong evidence that others who claim to be so cocksure of themselves are likely to be self-deluded, seeing ghosts where nothing of substance exists. Moulton 13:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, Wales's account and Johnny's account of the discussions are not exactly in line. We do not know what they said then. However, they might have had similar ideas (and different ones too) and it is possible that no one in the bureaucrat+Wales discussion could remember who first spelt out the word b-l-o-c-k- explicitly (especially if it took place in irc). I do not think Wales's action was completely appropriate; it was neither an office, a foundation nor community action. However, even if he had not taken part in anything in wikiversity, he helped launching it in August 2006. Hillgentleman < | ~| > 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the next subthread. Moulton 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Hypotheses[edit]

Hillgentleman, I agree with you that there is some fog obscuring the circumstances leading up to Jimbo's unprecedented debut on the Wikiversity stage. As you know, I have posited two hypotheses regarding his remarkable cameo appearance. I have tried, again and again, to falsify H1, and have consistently failed to rule it out. As you know, my colleague, Barsoom Tork (who is an Anthropologist from Mars) has expressly constructed an open and public experiment requesting the WV custodians to refute H1. Thus far, the custodians have consistently reified H1 rather than falsifying or refuting it. I fear that H1 may be the only surviving hypothesis after all the dust has settled. That would be most a unfortunate, lamentable, and regrettable outcome, as it could potentially jeopardize the status of WMF as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with an express mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." At the present time, there are some 260,000 Verizon residential IPs in Greater Boston who are excluded from participating in that core WMF mission. Is it wise for Wikiversity to discriminate against a metropolitan locale so densely packed with world-class institutions of higher learning? Moulton 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I am sorry that this page appears to lie outside the scope of Beta, which is for multi-lingual coordination, incubation for new wikiversity, and discussions on research and other policies. Local discussions in wikiversity in English should really stay there. Hillgentleman < | ~| > 09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas the custodians of Wikiversity, in their infinite wisdom, have expelled local discussions of their infinite wisdom. I have come here seeking higher wisdom than than I am able to learn in their curious, if alienating, gymnasium. Moulton 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can now edit your talk page on en:. To gain infinite wisdom, go prove P=NP. I don't think it can be done via any policy. Hillgentleman <| ~ |> 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I see that Mike Umbricht has now graciously unlocked the door to the janitorial hall closet where I had been unceremoniously gagged and stuffed these past few days of awe. As to proving P=NP, I fear that particular intellectual challenge is beyond my meager level of mathematical accumen. Moulton 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop offending people[edit]

I would like to ask you, if you can stop offending people from Wikimedia project. This project is not a discussion pool on other projects or people. It is not a place to have a blog. In your contributions I cant see any activity targeting research policy of the Wikiversity, nor other activity fullfiling the objectives of Wikiversity Beta.--Juan 23:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Learningcycle.png Thanks for for coming to Wikiversity. I'm looking forward to a future of many great years of collaborative learning. --JWSchmidt 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Geiger[edit]

The other day we were talking about possibly contacting Stuart Geiger. Did you ever make contact? I'm thinking would could ask if he has time to look at the existing Wikiversity research policy and make suggestions for improvement. --JWSchmidt 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Recent Wikiversity research shows that civility and collaboration are promoted by labeling the good faith contributions of editors as "spam". The working hypothesis is that "PhD" is from an arcane academic code meaning "qualified to troll and manufacture spam". --JWSchmidt 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


willing to post a neutralizing entry in the local Title Whitelist, so that I can respond to comments on my talk page, rather than in out-of-the-way pages? <-- Personally, I'm intimidated by the wielders of the might ban hammer who have previously punished me severely just for discussing the idea collaborating with you towards the goal of developing Wikiversity research policy at this is website. I'm intrigued by the idea that there is a secret "global block" in effect against you. I have no idea what that means and what the implications of it are. It is clear that there is no free speech or due process here, so I'm going to make an effort to make sure that Pope Urban's panties do not get into a bunch. For now it might be easiest for you to register a new account. I think you could then redirect this page to the talk page of the new account and hold conversations there. --JWSchmidt 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion[edit]

request for restoration <-- My view on speedy deletion is that it is for getting rid of pages that are obvious vandalism and other pages that are actively doing damage to the project. Speedy deletion is only for pages where there is no doubt that the page should be deleted. I think that for other pages that are proposed for deletion there should be community discussion and the page deletion decision should be made made by consensus. I've suggested] that a page such as Wikiversity:Page deletion/En be started and that that page be used to formulate guidelines for page deletion. --JWSchmidt 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

policy development[edit]

Maybe we can get back to developing the research policy. --JWSchmidt 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Adambro[edit]

I would be most grateful if you would not continue to post the same or similar messages relating to the English Wikiversity on my talk page. I have no intention of responding but you can assume I have read your comments if I remove them. Adambro 07:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adam, it is customary in academic cultures to conscientiously respond to fellow scholars in a responsible manner, especially when the issues on the table are those that undermine respect for the core values of scholarly ethics. —Moulton 10:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to enter into discussions with you on my talk page. Please respect my wishes by not continuing to post similar messages there for me. Thanks. Adambro 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should resign from Wikiversity, Adam. You are obliged to communicate with those whom you wish to govern. If you wish to govern me (or anyone else in Wikiland or in the real world), you must expect to listen to them and to engage in dialogue with them. —Moulton 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about User talk:Adambro[edit]

Moulton, please do not post to User talk:Adambro unless permitted or invited by him. If you continue in this way, any administrator here may block you without further warning. Please do not use beta.wikiversity to pursue a grievance, complaint, or "educational action" about what is happening elsewhere, unless it becomes a meta dispute, covering many language wikiversities. And even if this were a dispute here, harassing the user as you have is unacceptable. Please stop it, or you will be carted off the campus. --Abd 15:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it was about time you showed up here. What the hell took you so long? —Moulton 16:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


My idea for how to change WikiCulture were started here and were developed at Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En. --JWSchmidt 13:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How successful were you? What obstacles did you encounter? Of the obstacles you encountered, which ones did you overcome? Which ones proved insurmountable? What portion, if any, of your original objectives remain to be accomplished? Of those, do you still wish to achieve those remaining objectives? If so, are you interested in exploring and employing Liminal Social Drama as a method worth trying? —Moulton 13:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It remains to be seen if the people who misuse Wikimedia wiki technology will ever allow their disruptive behavior to be studied and discussed by their fellow Wikimedians. I don't know what a "Dramaturgy Workshop" is, but I am interested in developing the Dramaturgy learning project. --JWSchmidt 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, well I imagine it will be studied. The only question is whether they will participate in the studies of their own cultural paradigm. What do you make of a cultural paradigm where it is taboo to study their own cultural paradigm? —Moulton 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who can shit on people do shit, those who can't do doo, study the shit and clean it up. --JWSchmidt 12:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there's a pony in there somewhere. —Moulton 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ABD[edit]

I guess has wants cut infinite feed-back loop of your learning activities, for wikiversity has limited manpower. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 08:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are adding to that limited manpower, and suggesting that scarce resources be diverted from useless and damaging block enforcement for IP editing that is being independently monitored and that is not, in itself, disruptive, toward other more important functions. Moulton is far from thrilled by my taking part in certain aspects of block enforcement (reverting the edits of a blocked editor, pending review), but that is an essential ingredient. I'm willing to review his edits. At this point I'm not doing the block enforcement part, because the other part, review of the edits with a view to restoring what is acceptable from them, is meeting with some opposition from the usual suspects.
I vary my behavior, though it stays within an announced envelope. I believe I have hit upon a formula that will allow the constructive contributions from Moulton that were often mentioned in prior discussions about this, while not allowing disruptive activity, that was also so much regretted by many.
Now, this is discussion of what is off-wiki here, but perhaps there is some general relevance, and Moulton seems to want to discuss this on beta.Wikiversity. See below section and my comment about removing certain discussion from my Talk page here. --Abd 18:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed from my Talk page[edit]

Because I want my Talk page to be a welcoming place for all involved editors, I have removed certain comment from you, and my responses, with [2]. You are welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to restore that here, though I don't necessarily advise it. You are responsible for what is sustained here, and I'm responsible for what is sustained on my Talk page. Is that clear? I hope so. Now, what have you got to drink in this joint? --Abd 18:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations, Einstein. You've not only made me feel unwelcome on your talk page, you've convinced me that I'm wasting my time visiting with you or attending to your marathon length messages. I just don't have the stamina to plow through all that verbiage looking for a nugget of useful information. Moulton 19:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome there, but so are other people. It's not exactly a private space. Just respect the rights of the other people, you'll be fine. You are never obligated to read anything from me but perhaps warnings, and if I make a warning so long that it's hard to read quickly, well, you have a crackerjack excuse for ignoring it..... Einstein? Thanks, Sherlock. How is your program on Wikiversity running since I stopped watching for your edits, reverting them, then reviewing them and restoring nearly all of them? I saw one or two anyway that had been reverted and restored them, since they were fine. Welcome to the Cold fusion lab. Got any access to a neutron source, or proton radiation? I've got some detectors to characterize. --Abd 23:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee thanks. I'm welcome to come over to your house as long as I consent to be bound and gagged and subject to your discipline. Tell me, Abd, how did the Bomis Boyz™ B&D Fetish manage to make its way from Wikipedia to the English Wikiversity to Beta.Wikiversity? And who or what prompted you to buy into that kinky fetish? —Moulton 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you vote on Wikibooks?[edit]

I think your vote to unblock Thekohser could be worded more clearly, as it does not explicitly state your vote. Also, it would be better if you were actually logged in to Wikibooks when you vote, otherwise how do we know it is really you? Recent Runes 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know it's really me because I confirm it here, where I am logged in. And I am vetoing the entire concept of blocking, not just some particular instance (while otherwise affirming the general practice). —Moulton 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. Recent Runes 21:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He couldn't log in there anyway, I don't think he has an account, and while I suppose he could create one, he couldn't use "Moulton," or pretty much any of his other names, due to global lock(s), and the global title blacklist. He has an account here and can use it because a 'crat unlinked the account; see also Mediawiki:Titlewhitelist, history. Enjoy.
Hey, Moulton, whatcha been up to lately? --Abd 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Orangemarlin apologized for his behavior, agreed to a mentorship, and the case was rejected". <-- It is nice to have friends in high places. I was exploring possible Orangemarlin puppet accounts over the summer. At one time some of these folks were using usenet email discussion groups, but I suppose they have moved on to more modern (and private) communications channels. With all the secret off-wiki dirty dealing that swirls around Wikimedia projects it seems unlikely that justice will ever be done. --JWSchmidt 14:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia, you will recall, doesn't do Due Process. The rampant corruption and lack of fair play is so commonplace, it barely raises an eyebrow anymore. If there is to be any justice, I reckon it will have to be poetic justice, perhaps in the form of atrocious song parodies and cartoon sendups. —Moulton 14:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Schalfly[edit]

Here is the record of my dialogue with Roger Schafly regarding the WP BLP of David Berlinski.

David Berlinski[edit]

Hi Roger,

In case you missed it:

David Berlinski's published opinion is that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. He also criticizes Darwin's Model for not being scientific enough, because it lacks sufficiently precise mathematical predictions. See these notes for the full quote and for more detailed references to Berlinski's published views. —Moulton (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that. FeloniousMonk has gotten me banned from WP before because I objected to some of his guilt-by-association tactics. He is always pushing his twisted point of view.
I see that the lead paragraph tries to associate Berlinski with ID and says what he "refuses to theorize" about. No neutral encyclopedia would have an opening paragraph like that. Nor would it have a criticism section comparing him to an AIDS denialist. Roger (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not know any of that. ArbCom has more sense than I thought. You would think that if he doesn't like Berlinski's opinions, then that would be all the more reason to portray those opinions accurately on WP, so that the faulty views can be documented. But FeloniousMonk does not view it that way. Roger (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have given up on those jokers. They have no sense of fairness when it comes to anyone who is not an evolution true believer. Roger (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Or you could, you know, help out in expanding the article. It needs a lot more about his books obviously. Note that removal of comments by Moulton is per policy for banned users. Also, note that working with such users may constitute helping them evade a ban. (incidentally I do think that Berlinski's on ID are probably more complicated than the page has them. But it is hard to see how to have a detailed version of them without heavy OR.) Finally, a bit of AGF and avoidance of personal attacks about other users would be nice. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see how Moulton being banned justifies promoting false info about Berlinski. If you had any sense of fairness, then you would put his comments back. How did he put them there, if he was banned? Was he banned for telling the truth? I am not interested in expanding such a one-sided article. Roger (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. That's the issue I raised 3 1/2 years ago, when FeloniousMonk was still ensconced in power and IDCab still held sway. Here is what I just posted on WP:BLP/N:

Berlinski is clearly a critic of Intelligent Design. He says so in no uncertain terms in both the primary sources I cited — one in writing, one in an hour-long video. The incorrect theory that he is a supporter of Intelligent Design was concocted and propagated by Paul Mitchell, Tim Makinson, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tracy Walker, and others in IDCab. Of these, one of them (Paul Mitchell) was unanimously smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power, including "meritless accusations against others." Berlinski is just one example of half a dozen academics who have similarly been falsely portrayed by IDCab. The time has come to clean up the messes left by Paul Mitchell and his cronies in IDCab. —Barry Kort 10:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I expect Mark Pellegrini, Joshua Zelinsky, Tim Makinson, or some other remnant of IDCab will balete it, to continue their shameful cover-up.

Barry Kort 9:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is strange. I tried to determine whether Moulton was really banned from WP. From what I have just learned, he got an indefinite ban in 2007. From what I can see, the chief reasons were: (1) he is alleged to favor intelligent design but he repeatedly denies it, (2) he insisted on removing false and derogatory info from biographies of living persons, and (3) he has commented on WP edit issues on non-WP sites. I do not know whether the ban is still in effect, but it appears to me that he is just being silenced for expressing some legitimate views. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to this when I have time. In the meantime the fact that Moulton is continuing on this very page to out editors who are anonymous while making his conspiratorial rants should make you understand that your perspective on what happened is wrong. (I've deleted removed their names from this page. Please don't restore them). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason that you are protecting their identities? These are people who go out of their way to post false and malicious info about living persons. They attack him under his real name. Why shouldn't he respond to them with their real names? The only conspiracy I see that he talks about is this.[3], where various WP editors have identified themselves as having a joint intelligent design trashing project. Roger (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kindly read WP:OUTING, and then WP:AGF and EN:w:WP:NPA:WP:NPA. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI, now relevant ANI section JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Let's get this out in the open, Joshua. It's time for the corruption to come to an end. —Moulton 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are being removed from WP. I cannot fight this battle. You are outnumbered among the interested editors. Schlafly 23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I know. I've put them back a few times, but it's mostly a fruitless battle at WP. What you saw, with the David Berlinski BLP, was just the tip of the iceberg. Here on Wikiversity, User:JWSchmidt, whose blog I linked to on Facebook, has studied the corrupt practices of IDCab in considerable depth. I'd be interested in hearing your views on how to address the larger issues of unethical behavior by corrupt editors of WP, such as the one's you just encountered. —Moulton 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries[edit]


  • 11:07, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: Joshua Zelinsky illustrates Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed.)
  • 10:52, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎ (→David Berlinski: The time has come to clean up the messes left by Paul Mitchell and his cronies in IDCab.)
  • 03:36, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: Roger, care to do something about Joshua Zelinsky's activities?)
  • 20:34, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:David Berlinski ‎ (→Berlinski's Written Commentary: new section)
  • 20:15, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:David Berlinski ‎ (→Bibliographic Reference: new section)
  • 19:49, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace ‎ (→David Berlinski: Can we devise a satisfactory plan? —Moulton)
  • 19:45, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk: ‎ (→David Berlinski: Jonathan, I'm going to need your help to do battle against the remnants of IDCab. How can we go about cleaning up the lingering travesties of these horrendous BLPs?)
  • 19:10, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace ‎ (→David Berlinski: More comments here. —Barry Kort)
  • 19:07, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk: ‎ (→David Berlinski: Actually, there are a lot of problems with that BLP. I'm not a fan of David Berlinski. I happen to think he's a pompous ass. But I also think he deserves to have an accurate BLP.)
  • 16:04, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace ‎ (→David Berlinski: new section)
  • 16:01, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk: ‎ (→David Berlinski: "Incorrigible" comes from the title of Berlinski's own hour-long video, "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski," where he clearly presents those views.)
  • 13:51, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) David Berlinski ‎ (edit summary removed)
  • 12:13, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) David Berlinski ‎ (→Views: Add some nuanced depth to the characterization of Berlinski's critical attitudes toward both scientific and unscientific models of evolution.)
  • 16:42, 6 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:John lilburne ‎ (→David Berlinski: IDCab used to be led by User:FeloniousMonk, who was roundly smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power.)
  • 00:06, 6 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:John lilburne ‎ (→David Berlinski: new section)
  • 23:44, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: More information.)
  • 14:01, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly ‎ (→David Berlinski: new section)
  • 06:44, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎ (→David Berlinski: His published opinion is that ID is not a valid scientific theory. He also criticizes Darwin's Model for not being scientific enough, because it lacks sufficiently precise math.)


In light of your WMF username lock, and the lack of active admins locally, I have blocked you from editing beta.wikiversity as it is an unattached to SUL account that is positively you. Also your recent edits indicate that you seem to be attempting to bypass the lock. Have a nice day! :) Fr33kman 05:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for volunteering to play the Game of Police State with me. What level are you? —Moulton 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Per request from JWSchmidt I have unblocked your account on this wiki. Fr33kman 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh! Does that mean you don't want to play the Game of Police State after all? Well, whatever makes you happy. —Moulton 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Enwp retention vs active editors.png

The only thing in all this that surprised me recently was when you expressed hope that you might win your way through to happy ending in which there could be some kind of compromise between you and the Banhammer Culture of Wikipedia Disease. However, I suspect that the tide of events was always strongly turned against that. The rapid change in the graph (to the right) during 2006 corresponded to a kind of "phase transition" during which the constructive and helpful early culture of idealistic collaborators at Wikipedia was replaced by Banhammer Culture. I suppose that cultural "phase transition" was an inevitable result of too rapid growth when the whole world discovered Wikipedia.

I don't think you ever had a chance to experience the culture that existed at Wikipedia before the "cultural phase transition" of 2006. Similarly, Wikiversity started out with a group of idealistic collaborative learners. I know you did get a taste of the possibilities for collaborative learning projects at Wikiversity before the Hostile Takeover, but by that time you had already been viciously harassed by banhammer wielders from Wikipedia. I often wonder if you are able to imagine Wikiversity as it could have been, another expression of the joyous spirit of collaborative learning.

I recently quoted this to you: "...the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." I spent so much time helping to get the Wikiversity project approved and setting up the wikis because I knew that it was possible to have a wiki community that did not include Banhammer Culture. However, there was no way to protect Wikiversity from being infected by Wikipedia Disease. Wikimedia is now in the "immune response" phase of Wikipedia Disease. Social systems adapt to correct themselves, but sometimes the adaptation processes can be very messy. Human history and immunology both teach that many white blood cells die while rushing to defend against disease vectors. In 2008 I knew the power of Wikipedia Disease and advised you to not sacrifice yourself by expressing your function of using the real names of Wikimedians. It might become possible to defend Wikiversity from those who are experts at gaming the system, but if it is possible I suspect that it will require slow and delicate work that does not provoke the crowd to start shouting "witch!". There is room here for some research into how to protect online collaborating learners from Wikipedia Disease. The first "antibody" I ever devised was the idea that Custodians should have a proven history of participating in collaborative learning at Wikiversity. That strategy worked for a while, then exceptions were made and the banhammer wielders slipped in and took over. Part of the "immune response" is making sure that people know the history. --JWSchmidt 14:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions: What led to this? Is "Multon Lava" related to "Palomino Caprice Albatross"? On March 13 in #wikiversity, why did SB Johnny announce that he was shooing you out the door? Then he and Darklama tag team banned you from the chat channel. Why does SBJ have the power to ban people from #wikiversity? Darklama said that he was told who to ban from the channel; who gave him those instructions? Darklama was given sysop tools based on the statement that he would "not be active as a Custodian outside of helping us with technical issues". Given the sad history of violations of Wikiversity policy and the imposition of numerous bad blocks and bans, is it possible to immunize the Wikiversity community against the disruptive influences of such people? What is known about the "private information"? Does "private information" mean "such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public, or of public individuals who have not made that personal information public"? Related topic: what did "potentially libellous information" refer to? --JWSchmidt 12:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by PeterSymonds[edit]

It appears to be yet another bad block by yet another misguided Wikimedia Functionary who was gamed into acting by an abusive sysop. I'm still trying to figure out why you were blocked. I see no evidence that PeterSymonds tried to explain to you the reason for this block, which seems like misconduct and violation of the requirement for transparency in steward actions, but then, I've seen many misguided Wikimedia Functionaries who get away with disrupting Wikimedia wiki projects. I've been told that there is a bug that prevents blocked accounts from posting to their talk page. As a way around the bug, if there is anything you want posted on this page I will post it here for you while you are blocked. --JWSchmidt 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Moulton[edit]

PeterSymonds did not post a proper notice on User talk:Moulton declaring a block, giving a sensible reason, or affording me a fair opportunity to challenge his precipitous, out-of-process, and unwarranted action. Since there is no coherent explanation, I request a procedural unblock so that I may challenge PeterSymonds and discover how it came to pass that he acted outside of process to block me, in apparent violation of foundation:Whistleblower Policy and in the face of an alleged (and now demonstrated and partially acknowledged) violation of foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people. —Moulton 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above page section was originally posted by JWSchmidt for User:Moulton[edit]

Moulton, I'm still trying to understand why you were blocked, but I have to go to work now. I don't think I have heard the whole story. I doubt if we will hear the whole story until you are unblocked. --JWSchmidt 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • More from Moulton (following in bold). Moulton deposes and says, "I believe the reason I was blocked (and the evidence I gave, baleted) was that I had spoken the undeniable ground truth to corrupt power."Moulton 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deposition (in bold) was originally posted by me for Moulton. --JWSchmidt 15:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, "troll" is used at Wikiversity to mark truth-tellers for harassment and elimination. Misguided Wikimedia Functionaries have learned to say things like "private information" and "outing" and "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board" when they want to game the system and hide the truth about how Wikimedia wiki projects are disrupted by misguided and abusive sysops. Bad blocks and bans are routinely used by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries to hide the truth and silence "trolls". With this kind of sickening disruption and harassment of honest Wikimedians I'm not surprised that the number of editors is declining. --JWSchmidt 15:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such departures from the Charter, Mission, and Policies of the WMF are problematic in ways that may not be obvious to everyone, especially those who are not familiar with US statutes that apply to 501(c)(3) non-profit educational enterprises which also enjoy the protection of Section 230.
If it becomes apparent that WMF-sponsored projects have been corrupted in a way that departs substantially from the published Charter, Mission, and Policies of WMF, then two legal ramifications arise.
First, if WMF projects are shown to be evolving into organs for special interests or personal interests rather than serving as the general educational project that it represents itself to the IRS and to the donors, then WMF's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status could be jeopardized.
Secondly, if WMF-empowered functionaries are using their administrative power to control the content for nefarious purposes, then the Section 230 immunity could also be jeopardized.
Many of us know of episodes where high-level WMF functionaries abused their powers to control the content in ways that depart from the Charter, Mission, and Policies of WMF and in ways that turn WMF into a publisher with editorial oversight for the purposes engaging in the kind of editorial supervision that arguably cashiers any claims of Section 230 immunity.
Moulton 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In my experience, 'troll' is used at Wikiversity to mark truth-tellers for harassment and elimination." —JWS, above.

In colloquial Internet usage, a troll is someone who summons another (possibly random) person who willingly responds. Compare being summoned to being summonsed. When someone is summonsed they are obliged to respond, but often unwillingly, to answer in a Court of Law. When SBJ went to #wikimedia-stewards, he summoned any willing steward to voluntarily respond in the role of a Keystone Cop. You saw how many responded, of their own free will, to a Kort of Lawlessness. My current working hypothesis is that SBJ gamed the system by gaming the Wikimedia stewards to see which of them would willingly respond when he summoned them. The most eager respondents were PeterSymonds and Barras. I'm afraid to say, I am obliged to find them in Contempt of Kort. —Moulton 13:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system[edit]

Wikimedia does one thing very good: it selects for misguided functionaries who are adept at gaming the system. On 8 March 2006 a misguided Wikimedian violated the Wikipedia Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy and did so by using a single-purpose disposable account (see this description of events at Wikipedia). Misguided Wikimedians game the system by jumping from one anonymous user account to another. A group of disruptive editors associated with the Wikipedia WikiProject intelligent design (IDcab) defended the policy-violating BLP against attempts by other Wikimedians to correct the biographical article. Moulton attempted to improve the policy-violating BLP and for his good faith effort he was viciously harassed by IDcab. How is it possible for policy-violating Wikimedians to disrupt Wikimedia Foundation wiki projects? Misguided sysops such as FeloniousMonk allow gangs like IDcab to game the system and harass honest Wikimedians, driving them away from the wiki projects. Misguided sysops such as KillerChihuahua impose bad blocks on honest Wikimedians who try to fix the problems created by disruptive Wikimedians such as those who formed "IDcab". A standard approach is for a gang of misguided Wikimedians like IDcab to mercilessly harass honest editors and drive them away from Wikimedia wiki projects. Misguided sysops such as KillerChihuahua game the system by ignoring the policy violations of disruptive Wikimedians while at the same time inventing bogus excuses to block honest Wikimedians from editing. In 2008 some misguided Wikiversity sysops facilitated the disruption of Wikiversity by IDcab. A "wiki hit man" arrived at Wikiversity on a declared mission to get a Wikiversity community member banned. The "wiki hit man" gamed the system by using a puppet account to hide his identity. After vastly disrupting the Wikiversity community, the "wiki hit man" was rewarded by being made a Custodian. Other absurdly misguided actions followed, constituting a Hostile Takeover of the English Language Wikiversity. That disruption, mainly at the English Language Wikiversity, continues to this day and it continues to spread to this wiki. Most recently, some stewards were gamed into disrupting a talk page discussion here, gamed into initiating disruptive actions by a misguided Wikiversity sysop, similar to how Jimbo was gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. Wikiversity needs a Truth and Reconciliation process to heal the community, but the Ruling Party prefers to continue imposing the banhammer culture of Wikipedia Disease and disrupting what was once a peaceful community of collaborating learners. This is a sickening saga of misguided Wikimedia Functionaries is a disgraceful disruption of the educational mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. The "game" is afoot! --JWSchmidt 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, and SBJ did an impressive job of gaming the stewards on #wikversity-stewards. He summoned the Keystone Cops and half a dozen of them responded to his summoning. They auditioned for roles in "Who's Afraid of the Keystone Cops" and two of them (PeterSymonds and Barras) were good enough to win coveted roles as characters among the Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalyspe. —Montana Mouse 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Games at Wikiversity[edit]

I'm still trying to sort through the games that were played during the latest round of disruption here.

Is it now safe for honest Wikimedians to come out and continue their work or will the games continue? --JWSchmidt 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The games will never end, because there is a class of learners who do not enjoy conventional learning models, but prefer games and dramas. That class of learners is now the dominant class at the English Wikiversity. —Moulton 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Having a Buddha Nature[edit]

After watching the vexagonistic lunatic scapegoat psychodrama play out on Wikipedia for a few days, it occurred to me that their Bologna Detector missed a key meme. What's missing (besides Carol Gilligan's Ethics of Care) is the notion of having a Buddha Nature. Caprice has a Buddha Nature, but Lamont Stormstar seems to have missed that.

Firelion was talking to User:Matanya on IRC about convening a workshop to review the many Moultonic memes of mangled memory that got thrown out with the bathwater here.

Are there any Wikimedia Mods with enough cojones to participate in such a workshop, or am I fated to spend the balance of my days on this planet cavorting with Noco Jones?

Barsoom Tork
Anthropologist from Mars
14:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments for Ting Chen's Wikimedia Blog

The above part of this page subsection was posted by JWSchmidt for User:Moulton because of the software bug that prevents blocked users from accessing their user talk pages. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting comments here about how people are discouraged from participating at WMF wiki projects, but it is hard to detect evidence that anyone at the Foundation level both understands the problem and can do something about it. --JWSchmidt 04:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]