User talk:Moulton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Administrators' Noticeboard

Note: As a discussion of Moulton's block is ongoing at WP:AN, I've unprotected this page so that Moulton can comment on-wiki rather than being confined to email or offsite postings. MastCell Talk 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that as the size of the above discussion now exceeds 200 KB, Ryan Postlethwaite has relocated it to a new subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Moulton. Unfortunately the prior history page does not migrate along, so the history is now in two fragments, before and after the move. —Moulton (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. The subpage with AN/Moulton is languishing without fresh community input, in part because the stub paragraph on the main AN page got swept away early on by the robot. It seems the robot didn't know enough to monitor for activity in the subpage. Moulton (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Archives

[edit] Biographical Information

I am currently a Visiting Scientist at the MIT Media Lab in the Affective Computing Research Group. My long-term field of research is the Role of Emotions in Learning. I am currently working on the role of StoryCraft as a traditional method of learning.

I am also a volunteer science educator in the Discovery Spaces at the Boston Museum of Science.

My other affiliations include the Institute for Intelligent Systems at the University of Memphis and the School of Communication and Journalism at Utah State University where I assist in the curriculum in Online Journalism.

I was formerly a Visiting Scientist in the Educational Technology Research Group at BBN Systems and Technologies. Additional professional background information can be found here.

My interest in writing encyclopedia articles in my areas of expertise dates back to 2004 when I co-authored an 8-page article entitled "Electronic (Virtual) Communities" in the Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications.

Some of my other research interests include puzzlecraft, building online communities, and the functional characteristics of rule-driven systems.

I have a Home Page at MIT, a Personal Home Page, and a personal blog called Moulton Lava. There is also a collection of essays and lighter pieces on Moulton's Utnebury Pages.

[edit] Objectives

My primary objective here is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

[edit] Status

I am currently under a suspended indefinite block that was imposed on September 11, 2007, by KillerChihuahua as a result of an RfC brought against me by members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design. I am not seeking to be unblocked. Rather I am seeking a review of the circumstances surrounding my encounter with the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.

On May 15th, Dihydrogen Monoxide initiated a discussion on WP:AN calling for a review of the case, in the wake of an incident involving an edit war between The undertow and FeloniousMonk over disputatious content the latter sought to publish in contravention of WP:BLP on User:Moulton — a page that had been deleted since last February.

Sam Korn is a former member of ArbCom who posted on WP:AN an open invitation to me to send him E-Mail presenting my case.

After a few rounds of E-Mail, Sam Korn has posted his analysis and opinion of the case.

His view is that the RfC and its aftermath were flawed:

What is important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right".

This is a major step towards recognizing and rectifying the problem as I perceived it.

I would also like to acknowledge the significant roles played by Lar and GRBerry in the WP:AN discussions, and the instrumental role that Privatemusings played in bringing the issues to wider public awareness through the medium of the NTWW Skypecasts.

Moulton (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On May 25th, Ryan Postlethwaite initiated and filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Moulton, requesting that ArbCom help sort out the many troubling issues that had resurfaced in the course of the community-wide discussion at WP:AN. —Moulton (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On May 29th, after four days, User:Daniel dismissed the above RfAr/Moulton as untimely, with a vote tally of (0/4/1/1). —Moulton (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background

For the benefit of those who are directing their attention to my case for the first time, let me provide a little background and perspective...

An RfC against me was brought by members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, in the wake of content disputes on five or six of their articles — notably the biographies of James Tour, Rosalind Picard, and David Berlinski, and the articles on Icons of Evolution and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

I had been editing barely a week or two in their bailiwick, before User:Filll formally filed the RfC, which he and User:ConfuciusOrnis had been preparing on September 3rd and 4th in Filll's user space.

The RfC was dominated by members of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, who acted as Plaintiff, Arresting Officer, Prosecutor, Bailiff, Judge, Jury, and Executioner. ConfuciusOrnis even filled in the Response Section of the RfC on my behalf, and signed my bottom line endorsement to it, taking selected portions of unsigned material I had begun to construct in Filll's rehearsal area. I thought that was a tad irregular and mentioned it to Kenosis.

On September 11th, User:KillerChihuahua, who is also a member of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, summarily terminated the RfC and proceeded to an indefinite block, bypassing the WP:CSN process. She gave as her reason, "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc.", overlooking the {fact} that I had credentials in co-authoring an 8-page peer-reviewed and editorially vetted article for a four-volume print encyclopedia.

User:Yamla then placed a notifying tag on my talk page, giving a different reason ("repeated abuse of editing privileges") with the link going to WP:Vandalism. If you look at the RfC, you will discover that the word "vandalism" never appears. Thus both posted reasons for the indefinite block made no sense to me as they were at odds with the facts on the ground and with the content of the charges on the RfC.

In view of these confusing perplexities, I managed to submit a Request for Arbitration to ArbCom, asking them to review troubling aspects of my case.

Note carefully that I did not ask to be unblocked. For all I knew, I deserved to be blocked for some valid reason, in accordance with some comprehensible review of my alleged transgressions. And so I only asked ArbCom to opine on whether I had been afforded diligent due process in the course of the RfC.

My section of the Request for Arbitration begins and concludes as follows:

Moulton's Reqest to ArbCom

I am asking ArbCom to review whether responsible admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath afforded me diligent and conscientious due process, without regard to the whether the final outcome would have been justified by a fair exercise of due process.

...

I am asking ArbCom to investigate and determine whether the allied editors and admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath engaged in a familiar Kafkaesque formulaic script routinely applied to a substantial number of cases similar to this one, without regard for conscientious and due diligence in the exercise of due process.

...

I am asking ArbCom to look beyond the details of any single case for a recurring pattern of unfair and draconian treatment that bespeaks an unbecoming trend in the disregard of reasonable standards for the exercise of due process.

ArbCom declined to take up the question.

Moulton (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant Discussions

[edit] Previous Attempts at Dispute Resolution

I placed a Request for Ombudsman on the talk page of FeloniousMonk:

Request for Ombudsman

Would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding potential violations of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous and defamatory falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks.

Moulton 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk responded on my talk page:

Ombudsman

I don't think I can help you out with that since having reviewed the issue, I completely agree with Hrafn42 and Guettarda and disagree with both your position and actions there. My advice is take some time to better learn how Wikipedia actually handles these issues then revisit the articles; I think you'll find then your concern is unwarranted. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a higher authority than you that I can appeal to?
Is there some way we can talk over the phone so that I can explain to you (or anyone else you care to nominate) what I am concerned about and why? I am frustrated by my inability to get to the ground truth in this vexatiously crippling rule-bound system, as it only seems to be able to get to what most editors happen to believe, without providing any reliable functional process for getting past misconceptions into the ground truth. Science itself provides such a functional process known as the scientific method, but Wikipedia doesn't operate on that paradigm. Instead it operates on an anachronistic rule-based paradigm that wobbles to what the most dominant Wikipedia editors believe. When it comes to characterizing living persons, that paradigm is demonstrably fraught with errors that are nigh impossible to fix.
There are famous cases in history when the vast majority of people held laughable misconceptions. But science is an arduous process, and many dedicated scientists have suffered grievously for having the temerity to displace a popular misconception with a superior theory grounded in evidence and reasoning.
Getting people to honestly question their assumptions and conscientiously examine both their assumptions and the evidence for them is one of the recurring challenges in science education.
As a science educator, it pains me beyond words to observe how badly we have failed to inculcate a scientific mindset into the educable public.
Moulton 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And I reported that on the talk page of the Picard biography:

... I'd suggest that you seek help. I'm very concerned: whenever I see someone in obvious mental torment and disarray I can but hope they seek proper treatment. •Jim62sch• 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I am seeking help from a referee, mediator, or ombudsman to help resolve a vexing conflict with a combative and confused adversary. —Moulton 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I placed a Third Opinion Request:

Third Opinion Request by Moulton

2. Talk:Rosalind Picard#The name of the petition - Dispute over how to label a controversial unnamed petition that was later given pejorative/misleading names. 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Talk:Rosalind Picard#Moulton & WP:COI - Dispute over inclusion of controversial content that harmfully mischaracterizes a living person. 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Talk:Rosalind_Picard#Proposed Intervening Section on "Controversial New York Times Story" - Dispute over adding a section to examine and question the reliability of the sources of harmful mischaracterization. 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Athaenara responded on the Picard bio talk page:

In re 3rd opinion request

A request was posted for a third opinion on three disputes here:

  • The name of the petition
  • Moulton & WP:COI
  • Proposed Intervening Section on "Controversial New York Times Story"

Because more than two editors are involved and AGF is rather scarce, the request is not within the guidelines for third opinion Wikipedians. I hope other (including participants lightening up, backing off and cooling down) means of resolving disputes avail. — Athaenara ✉ 08:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll and User:Steve Dufour duly posted on WP:BLP/N:

Rosalind Picard

A crisis is brewing about Rosalind Picard. The basic dispute revolves around whether the New York Times is a WP:RS and WP:V source, and involves appearance on the Discovery Institute Dissent from Darwinism petition. User:Moulton is now threatening to publish in the outside media at least two articles which are critical of Wikipedia's handling of this matter. I have rough drafts of these articles as well as contact information for Moulton, and a large number of emails on this subject. Several administrators have already been involved in trying to resolve this. I need someone to assist and look into this matter.--Filll 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've offered to mediate on the talk page. THF 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The "Dissent from Darwinism" article is a great example of the obsessive coverage of the "creation/evolution controversy" here on WP. This is a petition with 700 signatures yet its article is much longer and better referenced than many on genuine scientific topics. On Ms Picard's article half of the space is taken up by the "controversy" about her signing it. The point of the controversy in her case is that her field is computer science, not life science. Steve Dufour 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are reasons for this, obviously. For example: (1) When I first came to Wikipedia, and tried to help on evolution, it was very clear to me that with the creationist trolls constantly attacking the real science articles, we would not be able to make progress unless we built up the articles on the creation-evolution controversy to deal with this onslaught. And so I helped make subsiduary articles and articles on various aspects of the controversy. (2) The articles are actually not so high quality if you look at them, except for one or two exceptions. The creationism article and the creation-evolution controversy article are in pretty sad shape for major articles. Intelligent design barely managed to make FA and this was through tremendous efforts. The other articles on intelligent design and creationism are in general not so high quality. (3) In addition, people are interested in this controversy, and therefore there is more input and more people helping. (4) It is an area where people are confused, and are badly in need of careful documentation. There are many good books on Biology or Genetics or Physics. There are very few that organize and sort through this confused mass of information on the controversy, and most of those are quite partisan and show only one side or the other, and it is something that is important in people's lives and something people are confused about. Conclusion There are obviously many other reasons. I suspect strongly that the progress made in the last few months on the evolution article and related articles is due in large part to the development of more and better articles about the controversy itself, deflecting attacks from the main science articles. A similar thing was done at dinosaur and creationist perspectives on dinosaurs. Without dealing with the creationist issues in another article, it would have been impossible to make progress on the dinosaur article. I will also note that there are many many articles on obscure parts of religion and philosophy on Wikipedia. These are just things that people are interested in, so they get articles and develop. Eventually the holes in our coverage get filled in...--Filll 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. I would like to see better coverage of real science here. On Ms. Picard's article, I still think 50% is too much of it to be taken up by her signing a petition that has nothing to do with her field of notability. Steve Dufour 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write that and it is now being looked at. Certainly the discussion in her main areas of interest should be expanded considerably. I might also note that people are drawn to controversial subjects; look at how much effort went into the Creation Museum article when it was first opened. I also might note that just a couple of months ago, before I and a few other editors busted our butts, the assorted petition articles dealing with the controversy were in disgusting shape. Look at the histories. They were all expanded drastically in the last couple of months. And they could stand a little more fleshing our and opposing views and citations in some cases. This is hard work, but I think it will pay off to have a suite of articles documenting this controversy, which in itself is an interesting sociological phenomenon. Could I edit in my areas of expertise like mathematical physics and physics and applied mathematics and statistics? Yes I could, but I wouldn't be learning so much, and then I would be butting heads with assorted morons who didn't know what they were talking about and who were over-ruling me. So I mostly avoid areas that I know something about. A friend who is an editor here and a surgeon has ended up being completely frustrated trying to edit medical articles; it is too awful to fight the people who do not know anything but revert everything you put in the article and use consensus to put in nonsense in an article. So I edit these things that I don't know much about, and I can learn and still contribute a little.--Filll 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Keep up the good work. (p.s. I have noticed that most of the people whose articles come up on this page are creationists, scientologists, or republicans. :-) ) (p.p.s. I forgot alleged closeted gays.)(p.p.p.s. I think the critics of creationism would be more effective if they focused more on scientific debate rather than criticism of individuals. There is already beginning to be a backlash against that.) Steve Dufour 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What the assumption here is, is that being identified as a creationist is a bad thing. Not to most of these people, actually. Look into this a bit before you make that unfounded POV claim.--Filll 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that both sides are giving way too much importance to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a 32 word petition with 700 signatures which has its own article and a category for its signers. Steve Dufour 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then a mediator showed up on the Picard bio talk page:

Outside offer to mediate

Hi, there. I'm a Wikipedia editor with 7000 edits, and strong familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There was a request on the WP:BLP/N board for assistance in this matter. I would like to help, if the parties agree to letting me mediate. I work at a right-wing think-tank (in legal studies), and I am also a lifetime member of NCSE, so I am familiar with both the evolution/creation controversy and with the perception that the press sometimes treats religious arguments unfairly. I think this would permit me to have credibility with both sides, but perhaps someone would instead feel that this means I have a conflict of interest because I recognize the theory of evolution or because of my employer. Would mediation help matters? If so, we can set up a Talk:Rosalind Picard/mediation page. If one person disagrees, I'll walk away without hard feelings. THF 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Pending Dave Souza's intervention, the need for mediation may have abated. If other editors can agree with what Dave and I agree on, then I think we are done.
Separately from this specific issue, I'd still like some help on the general issue, of which this case is an instance. The general issue has to do with distinguishing a report of a claim with the veracity of the claim itself. In the specific case at hand, there is some confusion over whether the NY Times affirmed a claim by the DI, thereby elevating it to a verifiable fact, or whether the NY Times only reported a claim, together with additional story content that cast doubt on the claim. The issue is clouded by two confusing elements. The first confusing element is DI's partisan characterization of the 32-word petition as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." The second confusing element is that the NY Times headline refers to the content of the 2006 website, which presents something considerably different from the 2001 version. There is no question that the NY Times story reports what DI claims. But there is considerable question how much, if any, of their claim is substantiated or affirmed by the NY Times. What I'd like some help on is how (in general, not just in this case) one can make that distinction, and how Wikipedians can avoid adopting a partisan's unwarranted reframing, spin, or evolving recontextualization when doing so substantially changes the meaning, import, or interpretation of a controversial statement. That is, what I'm seeking here is not so much mediation as education from an expert on that general issue.
I thank you for any assistance you can provide on any or all of the issues on the table.
Moulton 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Setting aside the series of arguments made above on this page for the moment, may I ask: 1) what exactly is being alleged to be misrepresented in the NY Times article, or other published reliable source, as to Picard's being a signatory to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition? and 2) what reliable published sources, if any, support any such allegation of misrepresentation of Picard's relationship to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition? ... Kenosis 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
1) The name of the pre-publication petition that circulated in academia in 2001 was not "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." That was the name that the DI later adopted to characterize an unnamed 32-word statement that 103 scientists had previously concurred with. Prepending that misleading name to the 32-word statement reframes and recontextualizes the meaning and interpretation from a technical issue among specialists to a substantially different (and considerably more notorious and controversial) advocacy slant. Labeling the 32-word statement as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin" is the misrepresentation.
2) The earliest known published version of the 32-word statement is found within a 2001 anti-PBS advertisement published and signed by the DI. In that ad, the DI invoked the 32-word statement and asserted that it supported their criticism of the PBS series on Evolution. The name "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was the headline of the ad attacking PBS. It was not part of the cited 32-word statement that the DI invoked as supporting their view.
Moulton 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I think can readily understand how the untitled statement could be misconstrued to refer to the need for more in-depth research into the process of speciation, cladistics, empirically observable precursors to speciation, etc., particularly if, say, a researcher had just been dealing with the issue of the fossil record not being a continuous random spread over time, or was talking about Gould, or any of a number of other possibilities. What published sources exist that have presented, e.g., a photocopy of the statement as it was originally circulated without title, a statement that it was circulated untitled, testimony as to any assertions of misleading statements made orally by persons circulating the petition, or other indicia that might be relevant? The sources in which such assertions are documented would be very important to the WP discussion. ... Kenosis 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after this point, User:Filll filed the RfC, short-circuiting any further dispute resolution.

Moulton (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I neglected to include a link to E-Mail to various appeal processes in the aftermath of the RfC. —Moulton (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] These are a few of my favorite lines...

One good egg deserves another, I always say.

[edit] Un Oeuf Is Un Oeuf

If I may add my two cents worth to this particular issue. I have been observing this whole situation from a total outsiders point of view. In fact, I didn't even have an account until today. Moulton has exhausted the patience of the collective editors to the articles in question. The editors who have tried to work with him, most notably Fill and Hrafn42 have tried over and over to stress how wikipedia functions and how one can constructively edit the articles. Instead of working with the other editors on the articles, particularly with the Picard article, a complete unwillingness to bend from his preconceived ideas of how wikipedia should function has been evident with the tone of Moulton's edits.

Throughout this entire RFC, other users have addressed their concerns with his behavior, yet Moulton has veered far off topic and brings up unrelated comments of 1) mental models, 2) parables, 3) analogies stretched so thin that it boggles the mind to see how they are related. Point being, this RFC was meant to address his behavior yet he refuses to address or acknowledge well reasoned complaints against him. Blaming Filll for casting him "as the Christ figure" only furthers the point that this process is getting nowhere and Moulton will not listen to any advice from the much more experienced editors.

We can dance around the may pole for as long as we want, but this have become an activity of exhaustion. Moulton obviously will not change his way, so perhaps a bigger step should be taken to address the issues. While his tenacity for editing can be commended, he is not willing to mend his ways. He has taken the stool and loudly proclaimed that he thinks this particular issue, even in the face of contrary evidence, he still believes in his own superiority over the other editors.

And, to Badgerpatrol, before you accuse the other editors of being bullies or abusive, please read through the entire talk page of the Picard article before you pass judgment. The line between bullying and trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen may be fine, but no one has crossed it. Of course, this is just the view from an outside observer. Take with it what you will. Baegis 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is always beneficial to hear the comments of external observers, and particularly new Wikipedians. The atmosphere here sadly can be corrosive over time- which is a real shame; we seem to have forgotten that Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. As one should, I read the talk page of that article before making any contribution to this RfC. There is no doubt that Moulton is a difficult editor (cf. the view that I endorsed). But I meant exactly what I said above. He posted this to my talk page at 18:32. Within five minutes, this rather unhelpful response (Moulton's comment was neither addressed to OM nor does it concern him in any way) was posted to my talk page. Three minutes later, OM posted here, and seven minutes afterwards Filll chipped in with a link to another comment that had nothing to do with him, from the talk page of a third party (on an unrelated thread to which, by way of balance, Moulton should probably not have been posting). What exactly was the aim of OM and Filll in posting Moulton's comments here? It almost seems like this hypothesised "persecution complex" is not far from the truth.

I invite everyone involved to review their contributions and editing style, on Picard and elsewhere, in an objective and detached way, and consider how others may view them. If an edit is not making Wikipedia a more fun and useful place to be, or if an edit may be perceived as bullying, incivil, hostile, or unnecessarily adversarial- then why make it? Badgerpatrol 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I frankly don't have a coherent theory of anyone else's (possibly hidden) agendas. All I have to go on is the desired outcome of my adversaries, which is to disempower editors like me, with whom they find themselves in an adversarial relationship. Moulton 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would respond, however given the record of some who misuse administrative tools to gain the upperhand in disputes here, I will decline. Just let me say I do not like to be lied to and used. Thanks awfully. --Filll 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Badgerpatrol, I'm not sure what causes you to be upset one way or another, but I'm sure you'll figure it out. I was merely pointing out canvassing by Moulton. Otherwise, you are not a part of this dispute. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the two edits above are of the type that I'm talking about. Do they escalate the situation, or do they improve it? I am not upset, and I do not claim to be a party to the dispute, except as detailed above with regard to my talk page; all editors are welcome to contribute constructively to RfCs. Badgerpatrol 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
How can thanking someone, after the fact, be considered canvassing? That would violate causality. Moulton 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Clearly WP:DE time has come. Who wants the honors? Odd nature 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Let he who is without blemish cast the first stone. Moulton 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Will this be followed by Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? We're not talking similia similibus here. If you're going to use biblical metaphors as rhetorical devises at least retain the modus rebus. •Jim62sch• 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer a contemporary variation of Matthew 16:23 ... "Giddoudahere, Doofus. You are thinking about this drama from the point of view of one of the nimrodic characters, rather than from the point of view of the overall dramatic model." Moulton 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of game playing and wasting of the community's time and patience that landed you in this RFC. Now either accept the community's input and stop disrupting the project or I'll take getting you banned up with the community. Either way, continuing as you are is going cease. Odd nature 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll take Or Else for twenty Quatloos, Alex. Moulton 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just choose to ignore his comments. But I'll support getting a community ban on this individual. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of Requesting Comments if you're just planning to ignore them? Moulton 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Second that wholeheartedly. This is getting waaay to tiresome.--ZayZayEM 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No one's forcing you to suffer through this. You could be watching Law and Order reruns on TNT. Moulton 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Only if you're buying me an airfare across the Pacific. I think the latest runs of rhetoric and sarcasm from Moulton shows the lack of community-orientated mindset needed to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. This is pretty clearly, and sadly, a lost cause and we need to get the respective articles back on track, several improvements have been suggested, and consensus is being achieved amongst other contributors.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what... If you ever get to Boston some day, you can be my guest at the Boston Museum of Science. I'll give you the VIP Tour. Moulton 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of RfC's isn't on the discussion page. And what's particularly interesting here is that ZZM originally was on your side Moulton. Apparently, he isn't so much any more. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly. There are no sides. Just a Vexagon. Moulton 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that OM's and Filll immediate action with regards to the possibility of canvassing (whether true or not) were born out of the sheer frustration at the lack of progress from this RFC. Since we are on a bit of a Christian/Bible kick here, their patience (and most everyone's patience here) is positively saint-like. And, since I am a new editor, I guess I am the one without blemish that should cast the first stone. But, I would be troubled if the first major edit I ever did would lead to the ban of an editor when said editor could so easily have taken the advice of his peers and adjusted his editing style and general attitudes.
Prior to submitting this, I noticed Moulton's latest post. It really does seem that he does not care to comment on the actual issues brought up and would rather give everyone the ole run around. Baegis 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a limit to the community's patience, and Moulton appears to have intentionally ignored it, perhaps positioning to portray himself on his blog or Larry's as another righteous martyr fallen victim to Wikipedia's admins and their conspiracy to stifle the truth or whatever this week's rant and gripe is there. Nevertheless, the disruption clearly must be addressed, and a community ban of some sort seems warranted and the least disruptive way to respond. FeloniousMonk 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Patience and perseverance are the hallmarks of a good scientist. Moulton 15:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
While that may be true, it does not apply in this case. Try something along the lines of, say, tediousness and disruption are the hallmarks of editors who will not accept that they are incorrect. Or stalling and irrelevance are the foreshadowing in the epilogue of an editors time at WP. Baegis 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

Moulton does not state anywhere in his aims "writing an encyclopedia" "working towards consensus with other editors" "adequately and correctly sourcing content" or anything which indicates he even knows where he is. It appears Moulton has confused Wikipedia with some kind of forum where OR and POV reign supreme, and twisting people's tails by playing the "martyr" card is good for something besides contempt or amusement. I've tried to work with him to help him understand how Wikipedia works, and he not only hasn't learned a thing he has continued playing games with manipulation and misdirection, albeit so ineptly that he is driving away anyone who has made the attempt to help him. If anyone else thinks there is any hope, feel free to give it a try, but in this puppy's opinion take this straight to WP:CSN and save the time and trouble wasted on this time sink. He's not here to assist in building an encyclopedia, and he's getting very much in the way of that aim with his disruptive tendentious proselytizing for his POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! I tried to help a little on his talk page, but the conversation quickly devolved into the same song and dance as before. Baegis 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought why waste yet more time on WP:CSN? I'm just going to indef and post on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent call. MastCell Talk 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. If you have comments please add them at WP:ANI#Moulton. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: ANI thread now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fact finding mission

Moulton, you indicate at WR that you are misunderstood by some at WP. In an attempt to increase understanding I will ask some questions, whose answers might provide information relevant to your relationship with the WP community, so we know better what to do. Please respond to the following:

  1. Are you aware of the mission statement of the WikiMedia Foundation and do you accept it?
  2. Are you willing to interact with the Wikipedia Community and its leadership as if (WP:AGF) we are honestly trying to make the world better by providing free-of-cost and copy-left information to as many people as we can within the limits of our abilities, resources and our other priorities in life (helping here does not mean I am going to neglect my other aims in life)?
  3. Are you willing to try to learn how we do things here and "go with the flow" (i.e. not knowing breaking the rules even if you are trying to change the rules)?
  4. Do you accept that Wikipedia "as is" is found useful by millions of people around the world?
  5. Do you understand that we the Wikipedia community think Wikipedia as is is a success and, even though it needs to be better, because it is already a success we are not going to radically change its process due to theoretical observations or even examples of other internet communities?
  6. Do you understand that the encyclopedia, its community, its software, and its rules are in constant flux; ever evolving; that WP:BLP is recent; that "stable versions" is coming on line soon; that we are encouraging acedemics to get involved; that we are an encyclopedia in the making and the processes that have so far created a useable source of sourced claims in an encyclopedia format are not those we have used and will use in creating finished vetted versions?
  7. In particular, with regard to that last item: Do you know anything about our distribution of vetted articles in DVD format to children in third world countries? (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD)
  8. Do you know anything about the non-English language wikipedias?
  9. Do you know anything about the non-Wikipedia WikiMedia projects? (Might you be happier at WikiVersity)?
  10. Do you think you should learn more about us before you try to tell us how to better govern ourselves?

WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, question 10 is a bit leading. Most of them are, come to that. naerii - talk 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
And BLP isn't recent, it's been around since 2005. Really, WAS. naerii - talk 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
2005 is recent. And "been around" does not capture its even more recent influence and strengthening. But your other comment is dead-on. The questions are leading - designed to inform as well as question. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
3 years ago isn't recent. And I mean 'leading' in the sense that there's only really one right answer, isn't there? naerii - talk 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "recent" means something different to you and me, I guess (I'm an old man, and also I was here before I created the BLP proposal; so I think of it as recent).
No, there can be more than one answer to the questions. The answer to the last question might be that he has very limited suggestions such that what he now knows is sufficient for the limited suggestions he has in mind (example: better enforce "Don't bite the new guys"). WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On April 22, I cited the WMF Mission Statement in a discussion thread at Wikipedia Review. Three days later (and unbeknownst to me until just now) Eloquence revised the mission statement to replace the phrase 'knowledge' with 'neutral educational content'. Prior to that edit, the Mission Statement read:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

As of the above-cited revision, it now reads:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

I understood and accepted without reservation the Mission Statement as it stood when I first looked at it on April 22nd. While I have no problem with substituting 'educational content' for 'knowledge', the modifier 'neutral' which Eloquence inserted is somewhat vague and ill-defined. Or to put it another way, I am unclear on what Wikipedians mean by 'neutral' in policies like WP:NPOV. Modulo that confusion, the rest of the Mission Statement is fine by me either way.

WAS, I just discovered that there are two versions of the WMF Mission Statement. The version on WikiMediaFoundaton.Org omits the word 'neutral' while the version on MetaWikiMedia.Org includes the word 'neutral'. Could you contact Anthere (who is the last editor on both versions) and find out which one is the operative version? I would find it more sensible to omit the word 'neutral' as that seems to be a volatile construct. As the relative strength of the voices of competing POVs wax and wane, the 'neutral' view would require the educational content to wax and wane in synchrony to the public clamor. I frankly don't think that makes very much sense. It would generate a rivalry among competing POVs to gain ground in terms of their prominence in the public clamor. We saw something very much like that, when the Discovery Institute sought to claim that hundreds of prominent scientists and academics endorsed their non-mainstream POV. And even then, the WikiClique on ID amplified their prominence here, by coatracking the ID controversy everywhere they could find a hook. Is that a healthy dynamic?
Moulton (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my policy and practice not only to assume good faith, but to extend good faith even when there is substantial evidence that another party is not acting in good faith. I can provide representative examples, if you like.

As a Systems Scientist, I have been struggling for the past ten months to construct a system model of Wikipedia's Socio-Political Dynamics, so as to be able to understand how Wikipedians conduct business amongst themselves. In that regard, I have one such model on the table, but I have relatively little feedback on whether it's an accurate or insightful model.

With respect to editing without violating any of the various rules and guidelines that Wikipedians are wont to cite (e.g. WP:BOLD, WP:Consensus, WP:IAR, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:AGF), I find that they frequently tend to be mutually inconsistent and mutually contradictory. Last August, I discovered that virtually every edit I deigned to make in a mainspace article, or every edit I merely proposed in an article's talk page was quickly reverted or summarily rejected on account of being in violation of some obscure rule. I concluded that the only edit that one could safely make without being in violation of some rule was the Null Edit.

Wikipedia serves many useful and valuable purposes. I routinely rely on it to look up details on items of popular culture. Wikipedia is probably the best compendium of popular culture on the Internet.

I have no delusions or fantasies that Wikipedia will undertake to revise its policies or practices on account of any analysis, criticism, or suggestions coming from my quarters. At best, I have the audacity to merely hope for some improvements, enroute to best practices.

I understand, through the recent efforts of Doc Glasgow and others, that WP:BLP is a candidate for policy revisions. I understand, through the recent essay from Raymond Arritt, that the problem of expert withdrawal is also a concern that has attracted some attention.

I am also aware, in the wake of recent events related to issues raised in my own case, that the interpretation and application of existing policies is also in flux.

I have seen some references to proposals and commercial enterprises to distribute selected content of Wikipedia on DVDs.

I know that at least one bibliographic reference I inserted into the English Wikipedia was copied to the Hebrew Wikipedia, even as someone deleted it from the English Wikipedia. I have not been able to divine the criteria for such editorial decisions.

I know a little about WikiNews, mainly because of some recent unfavorable publicity concerning it.

Do you think you should learn a little more about me (and other academics like me), before deciding how best to govern me? Do you think a more collegial and congenial governance model would be more appropriate, if you wish to attract and retain more scholars from the academic community?

Moulton (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral" is generally understood here at the English language Wikipedia as referring to presenting reliable published mainstream opinion and reliable published expert opinion and alternative points of view identified and discussed in mainstream reliable published sources - each in appropriate contexts (articles) and in fair proportion (due weight).
Before you construct a model, you should gather evidence. Wikiversity has several projects doing that. So far there is a lack of adequate data to formulate or evaluate any detailed scientific model of the Wikipedia community.
"I find that they frequently tend to be mutually inconsistent and mutually contradictory." Yes, we know. Especially IAR. And they are constantly changing. Trying to edit or to counter established cabals with literal rules following does not work as you found out. Try editing some obscure articles as an IP and learn from actual experience. Rule following without enough experience to provide common sense does not work. Expecting admins to always follow the rules is like expecting police to never break the law. People will be people, not machines. Act like it.
At WR, you seem to confuse "what are best practices for creating a useful encyclopedia starting with no money but lots of volunteers?" with "what are the best practises for creating the best encyclopedia?" Wikipedia is breaking up the creating of a great encyclopedia into two pieces: first create this useful encyclopedia with "anyone can edit"; then take that and have experts check/edit it into a great end product. We have already done this for parts of Wikipedia. We will continue to do this and other things to take what "anyone can edit" and create finished vetted products that can not be edited.
"I have not been able to divine the criteria for such editorial decisions." Individual idiosyncratic choices that the individuals believe will make the encyclopedia better. Some add a claim they feel helps. Others delete it thinking that helps. Anyone can add. Anyone can delete. If there is a difference of opinion, ask other people to join the conversation. Fighting about it only gets you banned.
"Do you think you should learn a little more about me (and other academics like me), before deciding how best to govern me?" I have no wish to govern anyone. (I'm not an admin.) "Do you think a more collegial and congenial governance model would be more appropriate, if you wish to attract and retain more scholars from the academic community?" Yes. Absolutely. Lots of people are trying to help wikipedia be more expert friendly, newbie friendly, and less of a "paint ball game". We know this is a problem. Your help in fixing this would be appreciated. But, we can't fix the problem by methods that destroy the very point of the community's existence (qua community) - to create free-of-cost copy-left useful educational resources.
At WR you express confusion over WP:NOR. It is really very simple. We wish to be credible in spite of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The best way we have found to do that is to support claims with references to published reliable sources, so that anyone can verify that claim. It does not mean one should not do research. It only means that all claims actually appearing in the article should in principle be able to be sourced to a reliable published source. They don't have to actually be sourced. If editors look at a claim and think, "I'm sure if I looked I could find a source" then it is ok to stay. Also, research sometimes shows a published claim to be wrong, so you can remove a claim you believe to be false based on private research. But if someone else challenges you, you need to convince them you are right. Part of your confusion is from running into people who will twist any rule to win an argument. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So, if I understand your explanation of neutral as applied, for example, to an article on the origin of life, it might have a section on theories of terrestrial abiogenesis, a section on theories of panspermia, and a section on teleological explanations for the origin of life in the cosmos. The discussion might point out the difficulty of coming up with a good scientific model or explanation for the appearance of DNA-based self-reproducing systems out of nonliving organic structures — a puzzle that is complicated by the astonishing complexity of the DNA-based replication process. Is that about right?
With regard to building a system model of Wikipedia's socio-cultural dynamics, I had not intended to undertake anything quite so daunting, except that I was unexpectedly handed an anecdotal experience last August. I wondered if my experience was a one-off fluke — a happenstantial misadventure — or whether anything comparable had happened to others. Now the plural of anecdote is data, so after I wrote up my own memoir, I went looking for others. I first found WordBomb's web site, which led me to Wikipedia Review, where I discovered a sizable community of outcasts of varying stripes, together with a fairly efficient information gathering system to build a record of known cases, some more notorious than others. It's not exactly a scientific sample, but when one is doing system modeling, one begins where the data (and the data analysis) can be found. It's too soon to say whether a viable and reliable system model will emerge, but I can at least test to see if Wikipedia's dysfunctional regulatory structure correponds to Girard's Model.
I was unaware that Wikiversity was engaged in anything similar. I'll have to take a closer look.
Since I am auto-blocked, I can't edit without logging in, as the system has captured my Verizon DSL IP. Doubleplus, there are those who would seize on that to cause me grief. However, I had made a few minor edits in the years prior to my big kerfuffle last August. The amusing thing is that afterwards, someone seems to have gone back and expunged a fair number of those previously obscure edits (at least in the English Wikipedia).
It seems to me that a project with lots of young volunteers is well-suited to create a compendium of popular culture, and articles of that nature are generally quite comprehensive. Articles on scholarly subjects appear to be a bit more problematic. It occurred to me that it would make sense to separate these two classes of articles. And as for BLPs, I think that one needs to be taken entirely out the hands of anonymous/pseudonymous volunteers and amateurs.
With respect to those minor improvements, like adding a useful bibliographic reference or a see also link, it seems rather pointless to try to spend too much time doing that, as there is no stability over time for such edits.
Figuring out how to help Wikipedia fix its animosity and antipathy toward newbies and academics has frankly taxed my creative problem-solving skills to their limit. I've watched any number of alienated editors become angry, frustrated, disgusted, cynical, and even bitter. What's worse, that progression appears to be all but irreversible for most of the disaffected editors who became alienated from the community they sought to serve in good faith.
With respect to your final paragraph, I've had to wrestle with allegations of WP:COI in those subject matter areas where I am most competent because they are the areas where I have the most depth and familiarity. I have also run into a meatgrinder trying to remove blatantly false information that can trivially be shown to be unsourced if one bothers to actually examine the cited source upon which the article relies.
Moulton (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are written by their editors and contain what their consensus is concerning content. If there was a consensus among the editors of an article to have that article contain broad philosophical discussions of an issue then that is what it should contain. If there is a consensus to restrict the article to specific science based claims, then that is what the article should contain. There is certainly room at wikipedia for claims about "teleological explanations for the origin of life in the cosmos" but I would not mix such evidence-less speculations with science based evidence describing what science has and has not uncovered about the origins of life on Earth. If is the sheerest nonsense to argue that a lack of evidence is evidence for the supernatural. If I don't know what you ate for breakfast, that is no reason for me to assert that is evidence you ate eggs much less to assert that since I don't know it increases the chance that Zeus fed you.
About "the astonishing complexity of the DNA-based replication process". The complexity is partly due to a lack of design. The DNA/RNA code is the most spaghetti-code like software code I have ever seen. It is exactly what you would expect from an evolution driven system. I think you greatly under-estimate the power of emergence and the ability of poorly replicating objects to multiply and evolve when there is a lack of superior lifeforms competing with them. Circumstantial evidence is very strong for early non-species (did not breed true) RNA self-catalytic molecules.
About "Wikipedia's dysfunctional regulatory structure" - when you have a talking dog, you miss the point when you argue over its use of the word "ain't".
"Since I am auto-blocked, I can't edit without logging in, as the system has captured my Verizon DSL IP." Nonsense. Your local libraies have internet connections. You are smart enough to be able to edit articles not known to be associated with you in ways that do not promote POVs associated with you. You can edit, if you choose. Just not in a way that is obviously you. Lots of banned/blockd people figure that if they can't POV push, then why bother editing at all. Surely you don't feel that way.
there is no stability over time for such edits I disagree.
See Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture for what was, can be, and should be done by experts. This article was a collaborative venture by several IMTA researchers around the world. Contributors included: Reid GK, Chopin T, Robinson S, Neori A, Buschmann AH, Shpigel M, Rodger A, and Bolton J. These experts also wrote some of the sources referenced in the article. I wikified it for them.
Would you like to edit Objections to evolution? You can be unblocked and/or given permission to sockpuppet if you wish to constructively contribute to that article. Or pick another article that you haven't been in a fight over. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence yet for panspermia, and (as far as I know) there aren't any satisfactory theories yet for terrestrial abiogenesis, either. So if I am reading you accurately, an article on the origin of life would say that while there is research underway, and perhaps some speculative theories being bandied about, science does not yet have a settled theory for the origin of life in the cosmos. End of article.
Then again, I might talk about the NASA missions (including the upcoming Mission to Mars) which will look for evidence of panspermia. And I might like to see someone familiar with work on terrestrial abiogenesis review the state of that research.
If there is a good theory for how nucleic acid structures got their start, it has not yet come to my attention (not that I've been keeping up with the literature).
I ain't got no talking dog. All I got is this ferchachta experience of the last ten months to come to grips with.
I am not about to go schlepping down to the library to evade the friggin' autoblock. And I have found that others can invariably recognize me after about 3 sentences, no matter what the subject matter is. I never did figure out what is so idiosyncratic about my writing style that gives it away so easily.
It's too bad the articles about Rosalind Picard and Affective Computing couldn't have been written by editors familiar with the subject. That would have been refreshing.
Objections to evolution? I am not familiar with any. Are there really people left on the planet who object to evolution? When I worked at Bell Labs in the Network Planning Division, and I had a chance to come up with a new name for our group, I selected the name Network Evolution Planning. That was my concept of intelligent system design, a quarter century ago. And I'd like to see some accelerated evolution in this project, too. The regulatory process I encountered here reminds me of the regime of King John, before the Magna Carta.
Moulton (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to say a quick word about the offer for Moulton to edit Objections to evolution. If he does return and edits that article, I would advise him to tread very lightly because that page is often visited by people who do not wish to make contributions and would rather argue and use it as a forum. I would suggest a less contentious topic for him to edit; something along the computer science lines. If he wants to avoid stirring up the pot and get back into the community's good graces, editing that particular article would not be a wise choice. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And I might offer that Moulton review (again, so far as I know) Undue. His clever arguments above all fail to take this portion of policy into account. Shame, really, because without comprehending and embracing the undue weight provisions, one cannot really edit WP (or really any other "neutral" academic forum) in a truly neutral fashion You can argue for the theories of gravity or you can argue that some god makes it all work, but if you present the arguments as being equaly valid, you sure as hell are not being academically neutral. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Similarities and Differences Between Filll and Moulton

Over at the WP:AN that Dihydrogen Monoxide started some days ago, Filll has published a comprehensive analysis in which he compares his history and adaptation to the Wikipedia culture to my history and maladaptive reaction to the Wikipedia culture.

Filll's analysis and synthesis of a theory of mind is remarkable.

My problem with Filll's analysis and his theory of mind is that it's not even wrong.

But I wonder if someone would be kind enough explain to me "the principles that Wikipedia operates under" and reveal to me how those "principles" (assuming I can ever apprehend them) make the treatment I was afforded by Filll and his colleagues both expected and inevitable.

Finally, since I believe in complementary relationships, permit me to present my reciprocal views regarding Filll...

[edit] Moulton's understanding of Filll

Although I have engaged with Filll many times over the past ten months, I confess that I have not yet succeeded in constructing an adequate understanding or appreciation of his mindset or character. I don't understand what he dreads or how he feels about various and sundry issues that recur in his life and his work. I know next to nothing about his personal backstory, including his educational background and experience. I am uninformed about his core beliefs, and baffled by his normative practices. I doubt I could accurately articulate his heartfelt desires or his avowed intentions.

And I am unable to make sense of his observable actions or the ensuing Shreklisch drama that has unfolded between us.

I regret to say, I simply don't understand Filll. I don't understand where he is coming from; I don't understand how he forms his beliefs; nor do I understand why he behaves the way he does.

In terms of my concept of best practices, the best character model I can honestly and ethically put forward at this time regarding my antagonist in this unusual relationship is the Null Model.

And that's the Yin and Yang of our complementary relationship, thus far.

Moulton (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another fascinating example turns up as the AN conversation burbles along. Whereas Filll presciently invokes the Rashomon effect, I take it to the next level and employ it in a parody.

Moulton (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing that it seems many of the posters on that forum find problems with your behavior. Strange. I thought it was just the "ID clique" picking on you. Baegis (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton asks "But I wonder if someone would be kind enough explain to me "the principles that Wikipedia operates under" and reveal to me how those "principles" (assuming I can ever apprehend them) make the treatment I was afforded by Filll and his colleagues both expected and inevitable." Moulton, you are dealing with human beings, who are going to act like human beings - some honest and giving, others less so. We even have a few bullies. I once played poker for no money with a few drinking buddies and accused a friend much larger than myself of cheating, not once but three times. What do you imagine was the "expected and inevitable" result? He threw a punch. I deserved it. What else should I expect from such behavior at a drunken card game? Well, Wikipedia has a ton of vandals and POV pushers and our defense is unpaid volunteers who make mistakes, who POV push themselves at times, who get feed up and overreact some times. It is part of the process. If you will not or can not work in such an environment, then Wikipedia is not for you.WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WAS, I am all in favor of giving people generous slack in a spirit collegiality and congeniality. But that door swings both ways, does it not? I had been editing in earnest on Wikipedia for barely a week, on a mere handful of BLPs and related articles that many observers now frankly concede were in atrocious condition, when Filll and his cronies in the WikiProject on Intelligent Design unceremoniously hauled me into a bewildering and Kafkaesque procedural nightmare, presumably in accordance with a sober application of those vaunted "principles" that he sanctimoniously refers to. —Moulton (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"presumably in accordance with a sober application of those vaunted "principles" that he sanctimoniously refers to." Oh, please. How many times do you have to be told that you ran into bullies that did not follow the rules; but instead gamed them to win an argument? The sad thing is I'm not even sure how many of that group even know they are twisting the rules. We are all delusional in our own way, as I'm sure you know. So why do we put up with them? Most of what they do benefits Wikipedia by keeping popular misconceptions out of science articles. And who is gonna fight off the very persistent and nasty POV pushers for no money other than people that enjoy pushing others around? You don't hire peace-niks as snipers. Catch-22 from the unexpected unplanned success at letting anyone edit. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That's quite helpful, WAS, and I appreciate your candor. With respect to the more difficult problem of presenting science in a way that honors both the educational outreach mission of Wikipedia and the rigors of science itself, I am more than willing to offer my experience as a science educator, with twenty years experience with the Boston Museum of Science. I believe it is possible not only to present science in a readable manner to children and adults, but also to adhere to the principles of the scientific method whilst crafting articles on subjects of scientific interest. The late Carl Sagan did not shy away from answering pseudo-science with authentic science. And while I am hardly in his league as a popularizer of science, I do appreciate his inspiring example. —Moulton (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you see my edit in the above section "Fact finding mission" ? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Sorry. I missed that. I'll go back and read it and respond. —Moulton (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reconnaissance

At WR you said :"What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis."

Less arrogance when dealing with people you don't know in environments you lack experience in. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that door swing both ways? —Moulton (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No. You failed at your objectives. They succeeded at theirs. I would conclude they understood the environment and you did not; having failed to do appropriate reconnaissance. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My primary objective was to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person. Can you suggest to me what their objective was? Did I fail because I went about it incorrectly, or did I fail because my objective is inherently infeasible within the operant environment in which I was obliged to function? —Moulton (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
They wanted to get rid of a bothersome person. You continue to be bothersome. Your claim that "My primary objective was to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person." is not backed by evidence, but instead seems to be simply a most generous self promotion and self congratulations. More likely, you are like the rest of us and have a mix of motivations; some similar to what you describe and others closer to the desire to win, get revenge, help a friend, etc. Why do you find it so impossible to learn? I already answered your question: you failed to do appropriate reconnaissance. Learn the game before you place your bets. Are you going to continue asking the same question using different words, or are you capable of being less bothersome and actually make some progress? (Sorry, I'm tired and testy.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Learn the game??? Do you mean The Encyclopedia Game, as notably characterized by Robert McHenry, former editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

"It was always a doomed idea. It was bad from the start. But it's got the public playing the encyclopedia game. To extend the analogy, it's also like playing a game in the sense that playing it has no consequences. If something goes wrong, you just restart. No problem!" (Robert McHenry, Britannica editor)

He said it more succinctly than I did.
—Moulton (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An amazing question, all things considered. I had a long response, but I decided not to give it. I think the answer is obvious.--Filll (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of dogbiscuit's response here? —Moulton (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice guy I am sure, but it is completely wrong. Wow. Amazing how much he misunderstands.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll, you can find dogbiscuit's reply to you here. —Moulton (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked. He sees the world in black and white, not even shades of grey, and certainly not in color I guess. And he just goes with what he thinks is some obvious reason, assuming things about my personal beliefs and those of others to force some interpretation of his own creation on the situation. What some people do not seem to get is, my personal beliefs in the matter are irrelevant here - everyone's are. We have a set of rules for WP. And we follow the rules, as best as we can.
Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they be allowed to pass the ball to the crowd and have the crowd pass it back to one of their players, without stopping the play? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they receive no penalty for intentionally tripping members of the other team? And so on? Do you think that the league would let them continue to play with their own made up rules? Do you think that everyone would give in to their demands? What if they were asked to read the rule book and follow the rules and they refused repeatedly? What do you think would happen?
I believe that it is quite likely that you will dismiss this as inaccurate, or an inapplicable analogy, or try to ignore it, or to find some loophole, or claim I am being unfair. Do you think that might be part of the reason you are in the situation you find yourself in? Interesting question, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you play chess, Filll? —Moulton (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You have not changed your attitude one whit, nor do you intend to. Not that I expected any different, frankly.--Filll (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase the question, Filll. Have you ever played chess? —Moulton (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, Filll, you may find more commentary on your last set of remarks here. —Moulton (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is about what I expected. Confusion and misrepresentation. And very selective reading of the policy pages, etc. --Filll (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

WAS, did you pick up on this remark? Moulton (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral" is a key value of the WikiMedia Foundation whether it is or is not specifically stated as so in any specific statement. We are not a propaganda organ. "As the relative strength of the voices of competing POVs wax and wane, the 'neutral' view would require the educational content to wax and wane in synchrony to the public clamor." is simply not true and reflects a complete misunderstanding of "neutral". I think you have been listening too much to people who condemn wikipedia for things it is not. "Neutrality" is not defined by popular opinion and Wikipedia does not aim to replace expert opinion with whatever the unwashed masses vote is true. That is not what we do. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral" is generally understood here at the English language Wikipedia as referring to presenting reliable published mainstream opinion and reliable published expert opinion and alternative points of view identified and discussed in mainstream reliable published sources - each in appropriate contexts (articles) and in fair proportion (due weight).

Am I misinterpreting fair proportion? How is that measured? The Discovery Institute raised quite a ruckus, got a lot of press, a couple of high-profile trials, a PBS Nova episode, a new movie, a big splash in WP, etc. Didn't they pump up their juice bigtime?
—Moulton (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I told you this over and over and over. And it is in the policies. And others quoted it to you as well. But somehow, you chose to ignore that or misunderstand it or misread it. And I am sure if you are told this again, you will again try to argue about it or wikilawyer for some other misinterpretation. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. Fair proportion? Proportion to what? How do you define and measure the baseline quantities of each alternative POV? Column inches? What? —Moulton (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a matter of editorial judgement based on the best available sources and the consensus of the editors of the article. There is no mindless formula to follow. The editors are expected to read the available sources and use their best judgement to carefully, thoughtfully, caringly come to the best conclusions they can to create the best article they can; faithfully representing what is believed by the most knowledgeable people on the subject of the article. Do you really think good article writing can be reduced to a formula? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%, modulo the difficulty of arriving at consensus. I heartily endorse the Ethics of Care when crafting BLPs. I most assuredly do not believe that it is feasible to craft high quality articles that are both accurate and ethical by roboticly accessing a bewildering laundry list of self-contradictory rules. —Moulton (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the uses of "Ignore all rules" is for people like yourself who are more confused than helped by reading the rules. When the rules seem to get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, then the WP:IAR rule says to make the encyclopedia better and ignore the rules. But you do need to get along with others and form a consensus rather than get into revert wars. And you do need to realize that personal knowledge can not be used to add data; we need to be able to verify claims from published reliable sources. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I rather like WP:IAR, because it allows me to ignore the WP:Hodgepodge of WP:Rules and just focus on making a better encyclopedia with more accurate articles. I do realize that personal knowledge cannot be used to add data, but it occurred to me that personal knowledge can legitimately be used to recognize bits and pieces of unsourced content that found its way into articles through inadvertent inference or assumption that is not supported by evidence or careful examination of reliable sources. My understanding of consensus is that it means there is no strong objection. When I strongly objected to the retention of previously inserted material that I personally knew to be both false and defamatory, I objected on the grounds that the contested information could not legitimately be found in, extracted from, or inferred from the reliable public sources upon which the article in question was based. I would have expected that in the absence of a clear consensus, such contested material would simply be removed until such time as it could be properly sourced. I personally expected that time would never come, since I had personally known the subject of the article for 24 years, and was quite confident that no such source ever existed or ever would exist. But rather than admit that there was no consensus for retaining the contested material, the other competing editors sought to remove me from the game, through what now you and others have recognized to be a sham RfC. Moulton (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Afterthought) Why in the world would any encyclopedia article writer make the article reflect what is shouted the loudest or has the most column inches? How does that make any sense at all? That would be an abandonment of thoughtfulness and discrimination. If that's what you want, just use google. faithfully represent what is believed by the most knowledgeable people on the subject of the article. Doesn't that make more sense than mindlessly repeating popular misconceptions widely repeated? A source that reflects lack of knowledge is unreliable. Knowledgeable sources are more reliable than non-knowledgeable sources. Our standard is reliable published sources. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why any responsible writer would proportion the contents of an article that way. It makes very little sense to me. That's why I kept stumbling over that "neutrality" definition, because that's what it seemed to say. I would much rather write an objective account that sought to minimize contentious reification of any burbling conflict amongst competing subjective points of view. So when it comes to "faithfully representing what is believed by the most knowledgeable people on the subject of the article," I found myself at a loss when the subject of the article is a professional colleague whom I have known, respected, and worked with for 24 years, whilst the other would-be editors don't have a clue about the subject of the article, having never met her, never read her book or technical publications, never attended one of her talks, never discussed philosophy and beliefs with her, and never romped with her remarkable and energetic children.
—Moulton (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
When people can't agree, sometimes someone is pushing a POV or is predjudiced or refusing to listen. Then you bring in other people to get involved, say their opinion, edit, mediate, whatever. Sometimes the other guy will turn out to be in the wrong. Sometimes everyone will agree you are wrong (then you just accept that somehow you are wrong even if you don't see how). Consensus works if you work it; usually. But that depends on being able to find people who care about the subject, or care enough about you to help you out. Hence the politics and usefulness of making friends at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One small nit. To my way of thinking it's not "making friends" that is important. (although I think I have a fair few friends I've made by working on this project, that is a bonus, a side effect) Rather, it's "gaining respect" (for your reasoned discourse, for your ability to work to reach and then respect consensus, for your civility, for your insight, for your good articles, for your hard work in doing tasks that need doing, even if they are unfun, and so forth) that is needed. When and where WP works well, it's a meritocracy, not a clique. Are there cliques? Places where friends stick up for each other regardless of the merits of the arguments, by reflex as it were? Places where WP does not work well? Yes. But that is true in any system formed by humans, we are all of us imperfect, after all.
Moulton, where I think you're off the rails is that you haven't "paid your dues" enough. I'm not telling you anything new, I've said it before, and I think you don't see why you should have to, you think that you should be afforded respect merely by what you are and what you've done elsewhere, but rightly or wrongly, WP doesn't work that way. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but to be successful here at effecting change, I feel you have to work within the system. (WAS don't take this as a sweeping criticism of your theme, but merely a refinement, I think you're on the mark in what you're saying here). ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your refinement. Thank you for making it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
PrivateMusings came across me on Wikipedia Review where, last November, he clicked on a link to one of my articles in the Media Ethics blog. There he posted a comment or two that (as Filll knows) eventually led to my participation in Episode 6 of Not the Wikipedia Weekly. My subsequent participation in Episode 11 with Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press brought me into contact with Kim Bruning, whose curiosity about me might never have been aroused, save for the fact that Filll objected to my participation on account of me not being in "good standing" per the outcome of his RfC against me. Kim befriended me and offered to lend his good offices to help address the problems I faced with Filll and his fellow editors from the WikiProject on Intelligent Design. The rest of the story is probably quite well known to anyone reading here. So that's my experience with someone extending to me the hand of friendship, after a brief conversation in the aftermath of an NTWW recording session.
Kim brought in others (notably Ottava Rima) to review and repair the situation, just as WAS describes, above. And in the wake of all that, many more previously uninvolved editors also came forward of their own accord to review the situation and offer their independent comments, analysis, and opinions. Among them, Random832 and Sam Korn were especially instrumental. At some point I hope to be able to write up a comprehensive acknowledgment of everyone who acted in good faith to remediate the lamentable travesty of last August and September. I am frankly less interested in assigning blame and more interested in repairing the damage from that nightmarish misadventure.
I tried to offer respect even to the most egregious of trolls, including Fuckin Broc on MoultonLava and Baegis on my old WP talk page. It grieved me that I was not offered respect in return. It occurs to me that all that free-floating scorn from total strangers cannot have come out of nowhere. But I still don't have a plausible theory to explain it.
Moulton (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Lots of people have a lot of free floating anger. The issue of explaining it is like the issue of explaining the begining of life on Earth - there are many possibilities, just no real evidence to choose among some of them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anger, I said scorn. Anger is the emotion that is aroused in the wake of an injustice. Since Fuckin Broc and Baegis were strangers with whom I had had no prior encounter, there couldn't not have been any slight or injustice from my quarters to elicit any anger toward me. No, their attitude was one of scorn, derision, and contempt. How can a total stranger, with whom I have no prior history, start off a relationship with an expression of scorn, derision, or contempt? —Moulton (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you are as bad at listening as Filll. Whatever you said; I said anger. And meant it. "Free floating means that the anger expressed at you may have had nothing to do with you. Could the Jews killed in WWII say "there couldn't have been any slight or injustice from my quarters to elicit any anger toward me"? Grow up already. Heard about the guy who comes home from a bad day's work, yells at the wife, who yells at the kid, who kicks the cat? "How can a total stranger, with whom I have no prior history, start off a relationship with an expression of scorn, derision, or contempt?" What world are you living in? People take stuff out on person B because they are angry at person A all the time. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And if I may defend myself, I approached you on your talk page to try to understand why you were having difficulties understanding how the RFC worked process and why it appeared you could not play well with others. And I lost patience at record speed because I quickly saw the behavior and general contempt for others that you had expressed so well in the period up to and including the RFC. I was trying to be a bit of a middleman but that didn't work out so well. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Everyone, newbie or grizzled veteran, is entitled to the respect of civility, and unless already demonstrated otherwise, the respect of assuming good faith about their actions. (see WP:BITE) You're supposed to get that for free. But people turn up on my page and ask my advice about things, ask me to fix things, ask me to get involved in things because they respect me in a way that a newbie isn't yet respected. That's a distinction that I didn't make clearly enough. I was referring more to the latter kind of respect above. You have to earn your stripes here. Rightly or wrongly, external credentials entitle you only to a polite hearing, just like any random that turns up and speaks politely, not an entitlement that your words carry any extra weight than anyone else's about anything. If you want your words to carry weight, if you want to have influence in policy and how things are done, you gotta do the time. (conversely, if you want your words to carry weight about article content, you have to provide the cites.) That's my view. I'm not an admin here, a CU, a crat elsewhere, a steward, etc., because I turned up one day and said I could solve everything if only people would listen, and I'm hopefully not a steward merely because I'm popular enough to have gotten 150+ supports from various folk in my election. Rather, I hope I'm a steward because I demonstrated that I was trustworthy, responsible, reliable and active, that I was wise in the ways of the wiki, and I was willing to work within the system. Anyone can edit happily here if they want to. It's up to them, just like taking offense is up to the person. Sometimes they may not want to edit (or not take offense), for good and valid reasons but it's still their choice. What many are saying here is for you to be successful, you have to internalise that and decide you want to go along with it. Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. I work for change, you know I do... but I do it within the system, it's a choice I made long ago, when I first found my words not carrying the weight *I* thought they should... it seemed no one said "oh!!!! Here's Lar, with 25 years experience in online communities, let's listen closely and do what he says, our problems are over!". I did my time to get my influence. That it happens that I enjoy article writing and some of the rest made it possible and enjoyable to do it. (don't do things here because you see a duty, do them because you enjoy them)... but I did it. I had to. If you can't, I don't think you will succeed in changing anything working internally. This is what I have been telling you all along and why I remain dubious. You need to say you get this and will go along with how things are done here, or you will fail again. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to say you get this and will go along with how things are done here, or you will fail again. Totally agree. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to say you get this and will go along with how things are done here, or you will fail again. How many times have I said that to you Moulton? 20? 50? 100? More? And not only do you have to say it, but you have to actually mean it and follow it. It is like, let's say a SOCIAL CONTRACT. Ever hear anyone use that phrase? --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's one thing to make a scientific prediction to the effect, "You need to appreciate this and go along with the way things are done here, or you will probably fail," and an anankastic conditional to the effect, "You must say you understand this and agree to go along with the way we do things here, or else it's curtains for you." The former intonation is just a scientific prediction, and I am fine with that and will take my chances in the probability space. The latter intonation comes across to me as coercion regarding a compelled speech act with specified planned and predetermined consequences for refusing to utter the required speech act. For reasons that you may now understand better, the latter intonation is abhorrent to me. That is part of the reason I responded, "Mu," which means "Unask the question." To my mind, answering it, "Yes," would have amounted to participating in an instance of coercion which would have potentially endangered your status here. I frankly didn't know about WP:BAN#Coercion at the time, but it felt improper deep in my kishkes. You see, a Social Contract contains naught but mutually agreeable terms of engagement, and I don't agree to be coerced. —Moulton (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Somey has a term of art for people who are wise in the ways of Wiki and know how to get things done. He calls them "fixers" (although, to be fair, I think he uses that term more in a pejorative sense than a respectful one). I watched with great hope as Doc Glasgow and NYB sought to work from the inside to fix the kind of problems that had most disturbed me. And I watched with great horror as alienated outsiders like Daniel Brandt tried to fix WP through strongarm tactics that I frankly abhor.
I am obviously in neither camp. I identify with the moderates who are working at the liminal frontiers of change, and managing not to become discouraged, frustrated, dispirited, or alienated in the process.
A month or so ago, I found myself on the sidelines watching three atomic physicists — one a Canadian professor and two researchers from Los Alamos National Lab — flee from Wikipedia in the wake of a nightmare encounter with hostile regulars. And before that, there was the case of Carl Hewitt, Professor Emeritus of MIT (whom I have never met nor corresponded with). What I bring to the table, more than suggestions for change, is the kind of horror story that helps explain why WP is struggling with the problem of "expert withdrawal" — a problem that even Filll recognized enough to highlight on his own personal pages here. I recognize that I have no power on Wikipedia, other than the power to bear accurate witness to the best of my ability. I know of the story of the Canadian professor, because he copied me on all his messages to WMF. But he is not going public for reasons that become abundantly clear when one examines the horrifying details of the case.
Writing memoirs of my misadventures in cyberspace communities is not my favorite activity. I'd rather be doing science education. The WMF says its mission is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world. I've already been doing that independently of Wikipedia for a quarter century, and I expect to continue doing that for the indefinite future. I'm more than willing to lend my good offices and good name to that enterprise within the pages of Wikipedia, except for one little problem. I don't have a good office and a good name here. The WikiClique on Intelligent Design took away my good name. And so I have no good offices and no good name to lend to the enterprise. It's up to the community here to decide what, if anything, they want to do about that. It's your choice, not mine. I'll go on about my life's work either way, and write my memoirs either way. The choice is yours. Just let me know, one way or the other.
Moulton (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you ever read the Expert Withdrawal pages? I don't suppose you ever noticed that I was the major contributor on them? I have 3-4 times as many edits to those pages as the number 2 contributor. I made plenty of observations and suggestions about how to improve Wikipedia there.

I don't suppose you ever considered that your behavior is a major contributor to the atmosphere which leads to threats of Expert Withdrawal? Just read the threads. Carefully.

I looked into the supposed problem with Hewitt. Sorry I don't see it. I do not deny that there are problems here, but I also notice that you and some of your friends have made the problems far far worse, not better.--Filll (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since January, I've posted about a dozen times on WR about the Expert Withdrawal issue, including links to the page and quotes from it. Here is one instance. In other posts, I've mentioned your name as one of those promoting the discussion with a prominent box on your user page. If you search for "Expert Withdrawal" and author "Moulton" you'll find them all in a few seconds.
Filll, I was only actively editing in WP for about 2 or 3 weeks back in August/September. My "behavior" on this site has been the Null Behavior for almost the entire lifetime of WP except for those two or three weeks plus a few days in December when I posted the RfAr.
Hewitt was scheduled to appear on a panel with Mike Godwin in Santa Cruz a week or two ago, but Godwin pulled out at the last minute, without disclosing a reason.
Moulton (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Null = NVA? •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
He means that mostly he has not edited. That's all. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
mostly not = sometimes &ne& null. WTF? •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hewitt was scheduled to appear on a panel with Mike Godwin in Santa Cruz a week or two ago, but Godwin pulled out at the last minute, without disclosing a reason. Ah yes that is probably because of some super sekret ID Wikiproject cabal. Makes a lot of sense...--Filll (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The World That Wikipedia Made:
The Ethics and Values of Public Knowledge

Thursday May 15
6:00 pm to 7:30 pm
Center for Science Technology and Society
Law School of - High Tech Law Institute
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Reception, 6 p.m.; Panel 6:30 p.m.

A panel discussion featuring Carl Hewitt, emeritus,Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT; and Pedro Hernández-Ramos, associate director, Center for Science, Technology, and Society, moderator.

Please Note: Mike Godwin, General Counsel of Wikimedia, was originally scheduled to participate in this event. Last week, Mr. Godwin informed us that he would not participate, and subsequent discussions with Wikimedia Foundation indicated that they would not designate a replacement speaker. We are disappointed that Wikimedia chose not to participate in this event.

Carl Hewitt

Carl Hewitt is Emeritus in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is known for his design of Planner, his work on concurrency (the Actor model), the Scientific Community Metaphor, and, most recently, on strongly paraconsistent logic.

Initially, Hewitt was excited about Wikipedia, but experience trying to write for the site has led him to believe that it is unsuited for such academic articles because of problems with "censorship by Wikipedia Administrators, lack of accountability, dogmatism, intolerance, and disrespect for expertise."

Moulton (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's cut to the chase.

Let's cut to the chase. You need to say you will go along with how things are done here and then do so to the best of your ability, or it is pointless to unblock you. It would also be helpful if you were less frustrating to talk to. You have a way of being an exasperating conversation partner. Do you agree to edit wikipedia in a way that you honestly believe will usually be met with acceptance (and to back off in any specific instance when you find your belief was wrong) ? Will you try? If not, then we are just wasting our time. Please answer yes or no and not another one of your exasperating philosophical excursions. Will you try? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mu. —Moulton (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That behavior is behavior that is not trying, so even though your answer is "That is an invalid question"; it is in fact a "No" answer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, WAS, but I had already promised Kim Bruning that I was fine with the WP:5P, modulo the substitution of objective (as I understand it) in lieu of WP:NPOV which I frankly find incomprehensible, disputatious, and argumentative. I generally don't find objective to be as problematic or argumentative as WP:NPOV. I asked Kim if my participation here from August 21st through September 11th of last year departed from WP:5P in any substantive or problematic way. His answer was that to the best of his knowledge I did not depart from WP:5P, but he couldn't be absolutely 100% positive. Your question, above, was worded in a way that seemed to be at odds with my understanding of Kim's offer. Hope this helps.
Moulton (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My offer was inclusive NPOV, but we'd show you how it worked. I think WAS will support you if you state that you will try to follow the five pillars. Worst case you don't quite manage, or don't enjoy working in that manner, in which case you can walk away, but you will still have the benefit of an improved reputation. If you say No, there is absolutely nothing to be gained, and this opportunity will not come again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As you know, Kim, I have stated that I have always been fine with the five pillars (modulo interpreting NPOV to be essentially synonymous with 'objective'), and (as far as I know) my participation here has never departed in any substantive degree from the five pillars. If there proves to be any substantive distinction between 'objective' and NPOV, I am fine with letting Ottava explain to me the distinction and demonstrate how to correct any resultant discrepancy. I have never stopped endeavoring to do my best, even under difficult circumstances. While I have no reliable way to predict whether my work will be met with acceptance or rejection, I nonetheless confidently believe that my work will ultimately be perceived and recognized as achieving a normative standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, appropriate to the enterprise of crafting a respectable encyclopedia that concords with the educational mission of the WMF.
Moulton (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I know where you're coming from and how you mean those words, and we've had a cordial discussion, and that's coming almost all the way. But it's too little too late. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ironically, if you'd have used less words, it might work out
Anytime one uses "modulo" to defend themselves or advance a position they might as well get out the backhoe and dig two metres. Use it more often -- modulo, modulo, modulo. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
How does that comment help move the discussion forward? I don't even understand what point you are trying to make there. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, you missed the point, but I'm not going to explain (Think: conversatio mors natale). Moulton will get it (as will others). •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your objectives

I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker.

I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and undestanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all.

If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences.

I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more.

Then try a controversial article in an area in which you are not personally involved, like "race and IQ" or "chiropractic" or "electronic voice phenomenon". Get at least 500 edits on the talk page of a controversial article trying to broker a consensus between warring factions and get the article closer to the standards that Wikipedia aspires to (not your standards, but Wikipedia's).

Put some time in closing threads at the COI noticeboard or a few other noticeboards.

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

That is reality. Deal with it. Otherwise, you are like an illiterate high school dropout demanding a chaired position in the English Department at Harvard. It ain't gunna happen.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Moulton, respond. It might be good for eweyou. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
How does that comment help move the discussion forward? It seems like baiting to me. and what is with the "ewe". ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
A bit repetitive, yew no. :) Anyway, there was nothing with the ewe, I just like playing with words, but I'll replace it sew there's know confusion. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Filll

I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker.

Is that anankastic conditional a scientific prediction grounded in a published system model or a manipulative/coercive threat per WP:BAN#Coercion?

I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and understanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all.

Are you aware, Filll, that I disbelieve in the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation?

What is your evidence and reasoning to assert as {fact} a haphazard theory of mind regarding my beliefs?

If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences.

What is your evidence and reasoning to support your assertion that I am demanding license to depart from all the policies, practices, and conventions set forth in WP:5P?

Do you maintain that you and your allied editors on the WikiProject on Intelligent Design were diligently following the guidelines of Wikipedia when you filed that RfC against me?

I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more.

Filll, I would suggest that you let your brain run your body, in accordance with your God-given faculties, personal value system, core beliefs, and derivative practices, and let my brain run my body, in accordance with my God-given faculties, personal value system, core beliefs, and derivative practices. Can you live with that kind of reciprocal agreement? I feel it would make life much easier for both of us if you could see your way clear to agree to those terms of engagement.

I won't cite or respond to your remaining paragraphs, above, as I fear my responses would become annoyingly repetitive.

Moulton (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Is the Rate of Progress?

On Monday, I published an article on the Media Ethics blog entitled, What Is the Name of This Problem?

I also copied it, verbatim, to a discussion thread on Wikipedia Review.

Today, I noticed on my watchlist that there had been some new activity on the article on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

Yesterday, it seems, WAS 4.250, undertook to correct a long-festering inaccuracy in that article. And he also posted a comment about it on the article's talk page. Having moved the ball closer to the goal line of accuracy, excellence, and ethics, the previous editors pushed back with all their might, so there was modest net gain in yardage at the end of two days. The article still does not acknowledge that the name, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was originally just the headline on the Anti-PBS ad of 2001.

I suppose I might have used the same 32-word petition in an ad headlined "100 Scientists Urge Rigorous Adherence to the Protocols of the Scientific Method When Examining Evidence in Support of Scientific Theories" followed by a couple of paragraphs of advertising copy explaining what that means. And I suppose I could have later launched a promotional web site, RigorInScience.Org, soliciting even more signatures. I wonder if those 100 scientists would have smiled in approval or frowned in disapproval of the way I had interpreted and promoted their previously untitled statement.

When I wrote that Media Ethics blog article on Monday, the key references were #19 and #20, buried deep in the article. Now the key references are #1 and #2. That's as it should be, since they are the references one must examine to sort {fact} from fiction PR spin.

So good for you, WAS 4.250. You're a mensch in my book. We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

And thanks to PelleSmith, too, for pointing out that whatever goes for the main article goes for the WP:COATRACKS out there in that ever-hazardous BLP space.

Moulton (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit goes entirely to the ID people (Felonious Monk, etc) who took my half-baked ideas and improved the article with them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What ID people? You mean Raul 654 and Filll who blanket reverted you? Or do you mean those who further developed Talk:Rosalind Picard into a combat zone trying to support exactly the phrase that Dave finally changed--you know the unverifiable statement that the petition is itself "promoting intelligent design." By all means thanks to Dave for taking some initiative after being prompted by your edit and the commentary on the talk page the followed, but lets not be so quick to pat other people on the back who already have issues with self-righteousness. I remain entirely disturbed by the debacle that took place at the Picard entry, and Filll (re: below) I welcome your emergence from the simplistic behavioral modeling some people have applied. Anytime you're ready.PelleSmith (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess you missed my edit summary. Is there not something at Wikipedia called a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle? Hmm...--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that interesting? Wow that does not fit with the simplistic model some have been pushing around here, does it?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The rate of progress in bringing the article up to standards (in terms of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media) appears to be picking up the pace. An IP editor has introduced a crucial improvement in the opening sentence:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is the name given to a petition notable for its use in promoting intelligent design. It is a list of signatories attesting to a statement, produced by the Discovery Institute, expressing skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism". This list was first published in advertisements under an added introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution".[1][2]

The most important part is the insertion of "the name given to". This important edit now helps the reader appreciate that the name given to the petition by the DI is not the name on the petition (it actually had no printed title on it at all). The article still doesn't reveal that the name initially appeared as the headline in the advertisement cited in Ref #1.

I hope our intrepid IP editor also attends to the "See also" section where the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" takes the reader to another article that begins:

These are some of the individuals who have signed the Discovery Institute's pro-intelligent design/anti-evolution statement, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

So once again, we need to revise that to correct the inaccurate characterization of this list as living persons whom Wikipedia has inexplicably identified as proponents of ID or opponents of evolution.

Moulton (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bupkes. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Critical Response

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article has been narrowly criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to related articles produced by the same group of allied editors, the professional expertise of the dominant clique of editors is not always apparent and is suspected to be deficient in scientific rigor and journalistic ethics. Also, the professional affiliations and credentials for some of the dominant editors is open to question. Finally, there appear to be many who recently participated in the substantial improvement of these articles who are not committed to the agenda of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, and who have at times been treated abusively or who have changed their minds about trying to work with the main group of editors on these interlinked articles.

Moulton (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, please consider this your only warning for any sort of attack (slight or grievous) on the editors of the ID wiki-project and any and all other editors. If your talk page is to remain open, posts like the one above need to be excluded. You have to give a little or everyone will wash their hands of your situation. So, please be mindful of this warning. I have also advised other editors to avoid baiting remarks on this page, as seen on the AN board. You may not feel the above is an attack, but considering the length of your collective postings about this particular wiki-project on WR, you would be best served by dropping this issue. If you choose to reply to this warning, please do so in a constructive manner. Thank you. Baegis (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissistic Wounding

There is a children's game which involves a kind of sting known as Narcissistic Wounding. You can tell when children are playing this game because they punctuate a stinging remark with, "Neener." The respondent then tosses a return barb, and signs it with, "Neener, neener."

Not all children play this game in a spirit of good humor. Sometimes a youngster becomes stigmatized by an especially severe Narcissistic Wound and flies into a Narcissistic Rage.

It is unknown what happens to stigmatized and traumatized youngsters who fail to heal themselves of Narcissistic Wounds, but I imagine it may become a burning issue for some.

Moulton (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may quote Lar, what is the point of this message? Baegis (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In a typical game, one scores points. However, the mission of the WMF is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world. That's what I'm doing here. Incidentally, whenever you see a red link here, it means Wikipedia does not have an article on that subject. —Moulton (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
... or that it's a case-sensitive redirect, as with narcissistic wound. :) MastCell Talk 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If I reall Narcissis was extremely "beautiful", hence he was stricken by his beauty, fell and drowned. Oh well, I guess idears fit. Sometimes. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrmmm.... That redirect goes to an article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which doesn't seem to focus very much (if at all) on pedestrian instances of narcissistic wounding as applied to the majority of the population who do not suffer from that particular Cluster B Personality Disorder. As near as I can tell, the phrase "narcissistic wound" doesn't even appear in the article it redirects to. Is this not an opportunity for someone knowledgeable in the subject to be invited to help improve the quality of the articles that touch on this topic? —Moulton (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you were the first to use the term here. Nonetheless, did you notice MC's emoticon? •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, there used to be a stub there, before it was redirected. I agree it could be a useful and informative standalone article, though I lack the grounding in psychology to produce one. Is Sam Vaknin an expert in the field? Not to be snobby, but according to teh Interwebs, his Ph.D. is from Pacific Western University, which some consider[who?] an unaccredited online diploma mill. Though someone with his experience in business and politics undoubtedly has had some practical experience with narcissism... MastCell Talk 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
When the stub on narcissistic wound was replaced by a redirect to Narcissistic Personality Disorder, what happened to the brief paragraph that defined the original term? —Moulton (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---)That unsourced content is still there in the history. I'd be happy to add an appropriate section at Narcissistic Personality Disorder, if you will provide some relevant reliable published online sources. If the sources don't mention "Narcissistic Personality Disorder", then I can't add the claims to that article so I would recreate the Narcissistic wound article. Off line sources could be used if you quoted enough that I could independently decide what to write, but that probably is not worth the effort. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you consider Sam Vaknin to be a reliable subject-matter expert or not, but if you do there is no shortage of commentary from him on the subject of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (including commentary on Narcissistic Wounding). I presume he could not be an actual editor here, since he wrote one of the better selling books on the subject. —Moulton (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I know nothing about the phrase "Narcissistic Wounding" nor the person Sam Vaknin; which is why I'm not adding content about it until I do. One should not add content to Wikipedia articles until one knows enough about a subject to know whose claims to trust more and whose to trust less (if any) - i.e. who are the recognized experts and who are the recognized "nuts". Do you have evidence that you can link to that I can read that shows that I should be able to trust what Sam Vaknin says about Narcissistic Wounding? Your presumption is either an example of a tired joke or an example of your mind being warped by WR. I have already given you an example of an article written by experts on a subject. So, you like tired jokes? Or, do you like repeating ignorant claims? Or maybe you forgot my mention of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sam Vaknin first came to my attention when I heard him being interviewed on this subject on public radio some months ago. (See the article on the British television documentary, Egomania.) His credentials are not in Psychology. He is Resident Political and Economic Commentator of Central Europe Review, a "fortnightly journal of Central and Eastern European politics, society, and culture." According to the CE-Review masthead, "Vaknin has a combined doctorate in Physics and Philosophy. He is an economic and political columnist in many periodicals in a few countries and a published and awarded author of short fiction and reference books in Hebrew, English and Macedonian in Israel, Macedonia and the Czech Republic. He has collaborated with Israeli psychologists and criminologists in the study of personality disorders and is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited. He is the editor of the Mental Health Disorders category in the Open Directory Project and the editor of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder topic in Suite101. He is serving currently as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. His new book is After the Rain: How the West Lost the East." His full CV may be found here.
On page 279 of Malignant Self Love, Vaknin quotes from an otherwise unidentified individual who is in therapy for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD):

My therapist describes NPD as 'the inability to love oneself'. As she defines it, the 'narcissistic wound' is a deep wounding of the sense of self, the image of oneself. That doesn't mean that other disorders – or for that matter, other life stressors – can't also cause low self-esteem.

It occurs to me, WAS, that the thrust of some RfC's, RfA's and RfAr's on the English Wikipedia (as well as some talk page feedback messages) are in the direction of Narcissistic Wounding. Evidently, the standard defense against such ego-bruising "personal attacks" would be to invoke WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. That defensive tactic appears to me to be iatrogenic — i.e. ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. Another commonly observed defense is to take a WikiBreak or somewhat longer hiatus.
Besides Sam Vaknin, I don't know of any other self-styled experts in the subject who make themselves available to members of the public as a credentialed source on the subject of Narcissism.
Moulton (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(<----) Some sources refer to the "narcissistic wound" as the original cause of later adult narcissism, while other sources seem to use it to refer to specific instances of ego bruising that results in an instance of narcissistic rage. Further, narcissism is the normal condition of children and teens (we have a lot of those here at wikipedia, thus a lot of narcissistic rage) and can be an acquired condition in people who achieve fame/wealth/etc (or see themselves as being on center stage at a top ten web site?). WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair characterization. The Middle School variety of barbs and taunts supply a daily dose of Narcissistic Wounding, ranging from mildly endearing or amusing teasing and kidding to mildly annoying obnoxiousness. Occasionally a cutting remark leaves a deeper wound, and in some rare cases, a severe instance or recurring pattern of Narcissistic Wounding can spawn the adult onset of some variant of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. —Moulton (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Peerless Editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design

The editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design are without peer.

Which is a bit of a problem.

You see, one of the most important concepts in the protocols of the Scientific Method is the practice of Peer Review.

It's been a maddeningly difficult task to subject the articles of this WikiClique to outside peer review.

The putative agenda of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design is to fight off pseudo-science — an objective that I'm quite sympathetic to.

But it occurs to me that one cannot fight off pseudo-science with methods that do not themselves scrupulously honor the rigors of science. And so, I was chagrined to observe the WikiClique on Intelligent Design depart from the protocols of the Scientific Method in favor of alternative methods of battle. To my mind, one must be scrupulously rigorous in examining the evidence for any hypothesis and reason carefully to scientifically defensible conclusions enroute to the ground truth. And one of the most important aspects of the Scientific Method is independent Peer Review.

The honorable scientist welcomes peer review, which often discovers correctable errors or other deficiencies which can be addressed to produce a more reliable theory or model well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. Moreover a good peer review can also introduce valuable new points of view previously overlooked.

Is this not a good thing for an enterprise whose mission is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world?

Moulton (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review is a two way street. And you have been reviewed. And guess what the verdict was?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the jury is still out on your curious and fascinating model of the character whose name is Moulton. Would this be a good opportunity to call for a peer review of Filll's proposed scientific model of Moulton's character? —Moulton (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well you probably should not be part of the jury. Let's let others decide, shall we?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. Independent peer review must be done by independent parties who are not on the same research team as the primary author of a piece of scientfic analysis. —Moulton (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You know most often peer review is anonymous I am sure. And you also should have read what I posted below about peer review. And should also be aware of my suggetions about it on the Expert Withdrawal pages. And someone who is a glorified engineer should not be lecturing others about the scientific method, because frankly, it looks a bit silly. Particularly your performance at the Picard article is just beyond ludicrous. What do you think the majority of the Biology Department at MIT would think of your behavior and your claims? Laughable.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem being silly on my own talk page. Feel free to chuckle all you like. As to my reputation for being an insufferable pedant, no one is obliged to visit my talk page if they don't care for my contributions to the educational advancement of the community. And by all means, invite the members of the MIT community here to provide independent perspectives on any of the articles or scientific analyses that are up for independent peer review. —Moulton (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't waste the time of any rational serious person to read through reems of material claiming that a New York Times article did not say what a New York Times article said, and that it is unethical to state that "The New York Times stated X" when it clearly did. That is ridiculous. --Filll (talk | wpc) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you know that what the headline of one article in one newspaper suggested for a downstream event, occurring in 2006, is the ground truth for an antecedent event occurring in 2001? —Moulton (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you ever hear of the principle that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth? That is pretty close to how it is, whether you like it or not. For good reason. Now Picard might be an alien from another planet in reality, but since that is not in any reliable sources, we do not put it in her article. Picard might be actually a male who has had a sex change operation, but since we do not have any reliable sources about that, we do not put it in her article. Picard might actually be the Pope's love child, but since we do not have any reliable sources about that, we do not put it in her article. The New York Times might be controlled by an evil Jewish cabal that wants to attack Picard by putting false stories in the NYT about Picard, but since we do not have any reliable sources about that, we do not put in the article. You probably will not understand this, since you believe you and only you are the only correct person on planet earth and deserve to dictate to everyone else. But that is not how a collaborative consensual online environment works. And sorry, that is just how it is.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Here is our corresponding colloquy from last August 31, 2006:

Enough is enough.--Filll 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. A single ill-chosen word appearing nowhere but in the headline of only one story (the content of which does not support the sweeping headline) suffices in your mind to firmly and irretrievably commit Wikipedia to publishing a demonstrably false (and potentially harmful and defamatory) characterization of 103 scientists, notwithstanding copious evidence to the contrary? Moulton 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is over, and time for the RfC I believe.--Filll 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? So? The fact that you wanted to tendentiously argue and argue and argue and argue and fight with other editors, lie to me, not follow my direction when I told you how to fix Picard's biography, and get the police involved when I tried to help you, and generally cause huge chaos should be welcomed with open arms? If Wikipedia is involved in defamation, so is the New York Times. I know you contacted Mike Godwin. Did he think you had a defamation case? File an OTRS ticket. Hire a lawyer yourself and ask. But you have continued down the same path. Plenty of your fellow malcontents at WR have told you you are going about this the wrong way, and they are correct. Why did you not follow Durova's suggestion when she told you how to fix this? Why did you not follow Kim Bruning's advice when he told you how to behave? Why did Lar and WAS 4.250 eventually give up hope when they tried to argue your case and help you? I see nothing but the same pattern repeated over and over and over. You burn every bridge you have. Why is that? Are we just rats in a cage for you to experiment with? Want to see our reactions? Want to see how annoying you can be before someone does something imprundent? Will you write it all up in a nice blog entry or a draft of some research paper? Publish it on your website? Put in a school newspaper at some minor college? --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you take exception to the practice of writing a personal memoir that bears accurate witness to an exceptional episode in one's life? —Moulton (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And this is supposed to make people think you should be unblocked? All of your recent rants here are ample evidence that you are unsuited to participating constructively at Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not requested to be unblocked. The community's review of the circumstances of last year (and the aftermath) may or may not lead them to conclusively determine if the original handling of my case was normative or not. If the Wikipedia community at large determines it was perfectly normative, then that will satisfy me and I will have no further interest in participating in the Wikipedia community, going forward. So far, the community's opinion on that issue appears to be mixed and unsettled. —Moulton (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Moulton, this community is about creating the best encyclopedia we can; not resolving issues of right and wrong, who has been naught or nice, or due process or normativeness. We kick people out when some of us think that they are a liability to encyclopedia making and let them back in when some of us think that they will be an asset. Perhaps you will understand if I speak your language. You asked "Was I given due process?" Arbcom said "Mu." You ask now "Was the treatment afforded me normative?" The community says "Mu." WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WAS, there is an interesting quote at the end of an interesting dialogue by an interesting genius named Raymond Smullyan:

If you want to get the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right and wrong.
The conflict between right and wrong
Is the sickness of the mind.

The quote is attributed to the Zen poet, Seng-Ts'an. —Moulton (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" [1] WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There is similar Taoist proverb along the same lines:

Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error. —Taoist Proverb

Or, for a considerably drier and more analytical investigation into the same meme, see this unauthorized essay: Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function. —Moulton (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me there are scant journalistic peer reviews of the Wikipedia articles crafted by the WikiClique on Intelligent Design. A significant indicator of how the WikiClique on ID has failed to live up to either scientific or journalistic warrant is the virtual absence of peer-reviewed analyses of their work. Despite this, the WikiClique on Intelligent Design continues to take pride in a number of their articles, at least one of which reached Featured Article status. Critics, including members of the scientific, academic, and journalistic community, are skeptical of the accuracy and disappointed in the quality of much of this group's work, pointing out that no established newspaper or magazine has yet published a favorable review of any of Wikipedia's intelligent design articles. Instead, intelligent design editors have set up their own RfC processes with "peer review" which lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting almost entirely of intelligent design editors ratifying their own preferred point of view. —Moulton (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should know that we have had an outside peer-review of our evolution article and it was quite positive. We also get informal peer-reviews of our intelligent design article. Both of these, as well as introduction to evolution were extensively reviewed as part of the inhouse FAC process. And you, as a systems scientist who works on online communities and journalism and affective computing, are qualified to review articles in this area? How many times has Nature Cell Biology or Cell contacted you recently for a review of an article? I guess you did a lot of reviewing for Creation/Evolution journal? Oxford University Press has had you review works like Creationism's Trojan Horse have they? You are a renowned expert in this area are you?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Applied science is not real science. That's why they support ID, because they don't understand scientific method. Engineers, computer engineers, etc. aren't scientists. But what do I know, my IQ probably doesn't break 2 digits. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am unclear on the distinctions you are making between applied science and "real science." For the first half of my career I was a Systems Engineer with the Bell System. In the late 1980's my job classification at MITRE was "Lead Engineer" in an organization that also had a job classification of "Lead Scientist". By 1990, I had become a "Visiting Scientist" at BBN bridging the gap between applied science and theory construction. The transition from engineer to theoretical scientist was cemented when my colleagues and I at the MIT Media Lab garnered the Best Theory Paper Award in 2001. —Moulton (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Upthread, we directed the reader's attention to a curious biographical sketch of me that Filll had published in his user space.

It seems the practice has metastasized. Now FeloniousMonk has similarly crafted a novel biographical sketch of yours truly in his user space. This one begs for scientific peer review, to see whether each item of evidence is probative of the hypothesized claims that rest upon the cited items of evidence. I propose we find a young scientist for this one. Perhaps someone between the ages of 12 and 15 would do. Your model for this exercise would be the comparable one Random832 carried out a week or two ago for the MfD/User:Moulton.

Moulton (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No, not you

No, I wasn't referring to you. I meant all the things they have said about people like Slim Virgin. I don't think you're making sense, but I wouldn't call what you had to say "filth". Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I haven't said anything to or about SV, as I've never had occasion to encounter her in the pages of Wikipedia. Her backstory may be of interest to some but it holds no fascination or thrall for me. —Moulton (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thrall? Hmm. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thrall "a. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage. b. One who is intellectually or morally enslaved. 2. Servitude; bondage: "a people in thrall to the miracles of commerce"" Moulton is simply saying that he is not in bondage or a slave, mentally or physically, to uncovering a so-called "slim virgin" - to seeking the "backstory" of "Slimvirgin". He claims no fascination with spreading wide the fascinating tale of her prior escapades nor her history of involvements. Makes sense to me. What's your problem? WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I will freely admit to my genuine obsessions. I am quite frankly attached to the goal of seeing Wikipedia rise to a commendable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media, especially when the subject of a mainspace article (or even a non-mainspace limited biographical sketch) is an identifiable living person. —Moulton (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
So now are you going to claim that my account and my advice and other information in that subpage is somehow invalid or defamatory, although it can all be backed up with diffs and personal emails and offwiki materials? Do you really insist on making this very very ugly? Do you really want to have your named dragged through the mud? What on earth? I mean you no harm. I just do not want you spewing nonsense on Wikipedia that others have to deal with and clean up, at tremendous cost. --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have expressed at some length to Kim Bruning my desire that the biographical sketch of me which you have drawn on your user pages be reviewed for compliance with WP:BLP, per this clause:

Non-article space

As the introduction says:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Moulton (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, what are we to make of your far worse attacks on me and other editors here on Wikipedia at off-wiki venues? I start to see how you were previously "targeted" in your previous difficulties with online communities. Behaving like this is not the way to make friends and influence people, at least influence them in a positive way. Please try to reconsider your stance and behave in a civilized reasonable fashion. This is just not some game here you know. And attacking others will not help you reach your goals. --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I recommend and propose that those off-wiki commentaries under my journalistic byline be independently peer reviewed for accuracy, ethics, and scientific rigor, in accordance with the protocols the scientific method and journalistic standards of excellence. —Moulton (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, I have just been contacted by someone from The WELL with an account of your tremendously obnoxious behavior there and disruption there. So that makes three other online communities that you have caused so much trouble in that they have taken various steps against you. That is three BESIDES Wikipedia, making at least four in all. Do you think if I looked further I might find more of these examples? Come on now, do you really expect us to treat you seriously after your past history here and in other online communities?--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Would that perchance be someone from this group of hecklers critics there? —Moulton (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well. That makes sense. Jon Awbrey has a similar past. And both seem to be wearing out their welcome at WR also including with each other. A prior comment you made about treating wikipedians as lab rats and other guesses was also an impression he gave me. But this whole thing as simply an expression of a personality flaw that he is incapable of fixing and has displayed elsewhere does seem to fit the facts better. But we are still guessing. In any case it seems abundantly clear that he is not suited to wikipedia. Oh, and an earlier comment about his use of the word "modulo" - I agree that it an example of his inability to successfully communicate - it is almost as if he goes out of his way to be difficult. Like Jon. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I take exception to being placed in the same class as Jon Awbrey. We are each idiosyncratically iconoclastic and sui generis in our own uniquely irritating way. —Moulton (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(ri) Now Filll, you know that some of us are thralls to drama. No biggie really, probably better than living on haldol. (WAS -- thrall ain't no verb, unless you're Alfred Lawn Tennison). Mouton, I said poetic, not arcane. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Jim62sch, English is more flexible than that. If I choose to use a noun as a verb, it is part of the nature of the English language that it be allowed so long as its meaning is clear. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No... verbing wierds the language. :) MastCell Talk 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/02/26/curbing_the_verbing/ :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - I thought I was quoting Bloom County, but turns out it was Calvin. MastCell Talk 05:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
WAS, I'm quite aware of the incredible flexibility of the English language, thank you. However, as I noted, thrall as used above is arcane. (My bad saying it was a verb). But, as I too use arcane words, I suppose I shouldn't bitch. Sorry Moulton, sometimes I get pissy over silly crap. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I occasionally interject an uncommon term into a dialogue, when I feel there is a meme in play that lacks a good name. It's a curious feature of psychology that conversations tend to orbit around otherwise unnamed issues or ideas. As an educator, I confess that I enjoy searching for these wampeters and looking up their a proper name. —Moulton (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have two things in common: a love for uncommon terms and, I'm guessing, a repect for Vonegut. Sometimes though, there really is no wampeter and ya just have to create a neologism (preferably from Greek or German roots). •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delusional

Moulton, you said, just now: "To my mind, answering it, "Yes," would have amounted to participating in an instance of coercion which would have potentially endangered your status here." Frankly, that's a delusional response on your part to a plea from me for you to agree to try. Try what? Read it again. If you are so defensive about being merely asked to try to edit in a collaborative fashion, no wonder you show every sign that you are unfit to edit here. As for WP:BLP and comments here about you, the key part is

"In project space, we maintain information about users that we need to make administrative choices. These pages are visible to everyone for the sake of openness and transparency, which is essential to the success and health of the WikiMedia mission. Usernames at Wikipedia are often associated with off-Wikipedia identities, and negative comments can be the source of difficulties, including legal problems. It helps both the people behind these identities and Wikipedia itself if this information is dealt with thoughtfully, carefully, and even creatively in edge cases. If in doubt about the appropriateness of publishing certain claims about living persons in project space, unbiased consultation is still important, but one should take care not to publish effectively the same information in seeking advice. Consider using alternative means other than on-wiki posting if necessary, such as e-mail, to discuss the issue with other editors, administrators, or the Arbitration Committee." (most of which I wrote)

We need to keep certain data on you for purposes of knowing how to deal with you. But we should accommodate you as much as possible within that limit. Perhaps it would be best to end this farce and make the pages you find objectionable (perhaps including this one) visible only to admins. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WAS, if you think that concern is delusional, please take note of the model I relied on to reckon that concern. As you may be aware, there is an allegation against Cla68 that he has leveled a coercive threat against members of the Wikiproject on ID. Earlier this morning, before I came here to my talk page, I was reviewing some newly filed evidence and analysis against Cla68.
You can find it here. I had viewed the disturbing event in question as an instance of Cla68 making a plausible scientific prediction — that something was likely to happen because the conditions were ripe for it to happen. But another observer viewed it not as a scientific prediction, but as a threat to intentionally cause the event in question to occur, and he viewed it as coercion in the form of an anankastic conditional: "Stand down or else this bad thing will come to pass."
That was an eye-opener for me, WAS, because I hadn't appreciated the subtle distinction between viewing an anankastic conditional as a scientific model of reality vs viewing it as an act of bullying.
Now which of those two ways of viewing it is the ground truth, and which is delusional? And how can you reliably tell which view is accurate?
Moulton (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You were not being delusional. You were using your explanation as an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with an allegation against Cla68. You operate on many levels, as do all highly intelligent people. I am glad that I misread you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Alas, these text-only conversation spaces are susceptible to misreading because they filter out all the non-verbal cues that normally help us establish the emotional tenor. Without that affective cueing sub-channel, it's maddeningly hard to infer affective attitude or intentionality. In the jungle, that's called Identify Friend or Foe. Here in cyberspace, I call it Identify Fiend or Foof. If you find yourself perplexed as to what affective state I'm in, your best default assumption is that I'm in a state of perplexity. That's my normal baseline state, most of the time. —Moulton (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Turning now to the WP:BLP issue, the policy you cite refers to project space, not user space. And the policy further refers to administrative decision-making. The biographical sketch I referred to is in user space, not project space, and it's maintained by someone who (as far as I know) is not an administrator.
Since I am unable to respond in that person's user space, I responded here, instead.
Moulton (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that our rules totally perplex you. Applying them literally doesn't work - you need to extract the point and apply that, using the details as an example of an application of the point. Real law is also like that. In this case, even tho some of the content in question is in user space, the content is project related in the sense being refered to in the project space details and so the point in that section needs to be groked. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Scientific explanation" is stretching just a bit. Based on the wording of the original and subsequent statements Cla68's verbiage can only be seen as not so diaphanously veiled threats issued in public fora. Clinton's parsing of "is" made sense; saying that Cla68 was being scientific is nonsense. When "if X then Y" contains an "or else" there is clearly an implied threat, not a statement of unconditional certainty. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the point of the conversation, is it not? An anankastic conditional is a curious grammatical construction. On the one hand it can be a matter-of-fact observation about reality (If you want to get to Harlem, you had better take the 'A' train.). On the other hand, it can be a blatant bullying remark (If you want to get along here, you have to do as I say.). I read Cla68's remark as an assessment of the likelihood of an anticipated event rather than as an anankastic expression of any intention to cause the event in question if certain prudently recommended adjustments didn't happen first. Being a scientist, rather than a bully, I try to make sure that I couch scientific theories and predictions in language that cannot be mistaken as a bullying or coercive threat, as if I have the power to control the future. But most people are not that cognizant of such ambiguous or confusing ways of parsing a poorly worded anankastic conditional. Note that in the context of a game, the players do have presumptive power to strongly influence the future course of events in the gameplay. Sometimes I do wonder if Wikipedia is more of a game than a traditional educational enterprise. —Moulton (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's the point. We all, on occasion, word things poorly, but Cla68 persisted in this style of wording so it was read by most as a threat. Perhaps it was just clumsiness, but based upon the corpus delicti established by his prior interactions, I really have to wonder. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of delusional vs. ground truth, here is today's exercise in teasing apart those two categories of beliefs and assertions.

Take a look at the very first sentence (above the article table of contents) of this mainspace article. To borrow a term of art from Jim, is it bupkes or not? Can you support your thesis with evidence and reasoning? —Moulton (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's been two days and none of the Earthlings have shown up for class in this section of the Interplanetary University since I posted the above assignment. Perhaps I was deluding myself into believing anyone cared. —Moulton (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Moulton

Please see the above request for arbitration that I have filed regarding your block status. Please feel free to create a statement here, and I, or another user will copy it across to the main RfArb page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. This posting will serve to acknowledge that I am now aware of the RfArb. I will think carefully about what to put into a statement to the ArbCom, after I have had a chance to discuss my range of options and clarify my interests, issues, and objectives with those who would consent to counsel me in this matter, going forward. —Moulton (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I expect that you will make some long beside-the-point comment and yet again be told "Mu". I suggest that you simply say "No thanks, I do not wish to be unblocked." or "I would like to be unblocked as a symbol to re-establish my good name; but I do not intend to edit anything other than my talk page and other forums where comments are made concerning me." or "Please unblock me; I plan to edit constructively (or I will try to edit appropriately)." or some similar short statement. WP:IAR partly exists for cases like yourself where the person is perplexed by the rules and thus is simply counseled to make the encyclopedia better (and "don't be a dick" is sometimes added). Please read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and its corollary http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick. Maybe you will become less perplexed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing to my attention the essay page that interprets the meaning and application of WP:IAR. That page made eminently good sense to me and concords without noticeable discrepancy with my own concept of how I strive to operate in life (at least when I have my senses and wits about me). Another useful criterion, albeit a bit mathematical, is to ensure that every deliberate step is intended to reduce the entropy of the content of the Wiki knowledge base here. In this case the direction of increased orderliness in this project would be defined as improving the accuracy, excellence, and ethics of the content of the encyclopedia (including attendant discussions), with due appreciation for the overarching mission of WMF to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world. As to your scientific prediction of what the outcome of the ArbCom case will be, that will be a fascinating demonstration of the protocols of the scientific method as it confirms or refutes the prediction emanating from your current model. But that also raises another useful question, WAS. If you anticipate that whatever I submit to ArbCom will, in all likelihood (per your current model), be "beside the point" could you spell out what, in your view, is the point that Ryan had in mind for ArbCom when he initiated the Request for Arbitration? —Moulton (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: With regard to WP:DICK, I would have couched that meme in terms of minimizing the resort to puerile games of narcissistic wounding. Neener. —Moulton (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)≈
"Thank you" Welcome. "ensure that every deliberate step is intended to reduce the entropy of the content of the Wiki knowledge base here." Can't happen. "improving the accuracy, excellence, and ethics of the content of the encyclopedia (including attendant discussions), with due appreciation for the overarching mission of WMF to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world." "improving" is a fine goal; but actually achieving it anytime soon is way too ambitious for available resources - we still are not staffed up appropriately at the foundation and we still don't have "stable versions" - crawl before we walk, walk before we run "As to your scientific prediction of what the outcome of the ArbCom case will be" I have no such predictions, except I doubt a majority of arbcom will even read all the comments "could you spell out what, in your view, is the point that Ryan had in mind for ArbCom when he initiated the Request for Arbitration?" I expect that he thought that was proper process and so initiated the process on that basis rather than evaluating options, strategies and outcomes as you or I would have done. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for me to pick up your affective tone here, WAS, but it's coming through as more cynical and pessimistic than optimistic. Are you really saying that the mean drift in overall quality is currently retrograde, and that turning that around so that the net direction of motion is one of gradual net overall improvement is not yet on the horizon?!? I find it hard to believe you are actually saying that. —Moulton (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I give myself an "F" in communicating in that last exchange. As you suspect, I did not accurately convey what I think. So I'll try again. I think Wikipedia is useful and every year more useful than the last. I think the WikiMedia Foundation is getting better every year than the last. (Which is no surprise as it had no where to go but up - nonexistence to existence - no money to some money - inadequate servers to enough servers - volunteers to untrained paid staff to trained professional staff to now fully appropriately staffing up with people who can get grant money pay for their salaries and salaries of more software engineers and for various mission related projects.) I think the community is very much larger than it used to be and is getting worse in average competence and understanding of what we are trying to do here (think "Forever September"); but enculturating them has become part of the mission. Whether that will work or not, I have no idea. But if it does not work, then the Foundation will take some drastic steps (maybe even similar to some items Greg proposes in his answers on Meta to questions to board candidates). We hope it won't come to that, but if the community moves away from the Foundation Mission, then we will in the end part ways, and those who no longer want to be a part of helping with that mission can move on to other web sites where they can pursue their alternative objectives. To illustrate what I am talking about, review the efforts of the board to restrict fair use photos and the resistance but ultimate acceptance of that. Copy-left is a very important part of the vision of the founders, original editors and the current board; because it is critical to the vision of free of cost information to all humanity. Many at WR are dead set against the copy-left vision of increasing freedom and information for all humans. (We follow on the lead of Richard Stallman - this accounts for the high proportion of computer experts in the founding of this community. This vision is a direct response to understanding the possibilities allowed by computers and the internet.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrmmm... We seem to be talking about largely unrelated subjects here. I was talking about adopting a personal work ethic that strives to leave everything I touch in somewhat better shape than I found it. You seem to be talking about the mean demographic competence of the population of participants (which I take it is declining over time). That reminds me of a criticism about the terrible condition of Georgia's prisons. Governor Lester Maddox responded that things were not likely to get better in Georgia's prisons until Georgia got a better class of prisoner. —Moulton (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"strive to leave everything I touch in somewhat better shape than I found it" is an ethical standard taught to me by my father (a career military officer) in the context of moving from one house on a military base to another house on a military base on an average of once every two years over the entire period of my youth. Another ethical lesson was learned from watching him in his flight suit on a flight-line on a SAC base while having a picnic with us his family as he was not permitted to stray far from his nuclear bomb equipped airplane for extended periods. I remember looking at his flight gear, looking at the meat cooking, looking at the bombs under the wings of a plane visible on the other side of a barbed wire fence... WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Would that SAC base perchance be Offutt Air Force Base? (I grew up in Omaha and lived in Nebraska until I graduated from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.) —Moulton (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I've never lived in Nebraska. I've lived in 15 other states though. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that we are a goal-driven system and not a rule-driven system; so all your complaints about "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.""1 do not apply. If fact, as I noted higher up a minute ago, real government laws are also not mindlessly applied in the way that would be necessary for your proposition about "Hammurabi's Original Logic Error" to have validity. Contrary to your expectations and presumptions, lawyers and judges do not treat laws the way logic experts and software engineers treat rules. This has been a frequent point of misunderstanding at Slashdot, for example. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am no stranger to lamentable misunderstandings and concomitant misadventures at Slashdot, but that is beside the point. I, too, am a goal-oriented person, as I spelled out in this essay from twenty years ago: The Calculus of Ideas. Off-Wiki, I'd be glad to discuss with you or anyone else the philosophical and mathematical ideas summarized in Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function. —Moulton (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining the Issues Before ArbCom

The discussion at WP:AN/Moulton encompasses multiple issues, not all of which may be suitable or ripe for urgent ArbCom attention. As I read the criteria for which kinds of disputes ArbCom handles, this criterion stands out:

Unusually divisive disputes among administrators

That one seems to match what Ryan Postlethwaite has submitted to ArbCom. His observation is that the community appears to be sharply divided over two issues. One issue is whether the RfC was a normative process with a normative outcome, in accordance with "the way Wikipedians do things around here" (i.e. prevailing Wikipedia culture), or whether the RfC was a sham and a delusion, departing from the professed way things are done here. Opinions are divided in the community. My opinion on that probably is irrelevant, as I'm hardly an objective observer. All I can do is ask the question, and hope to get a straight answer. Having asked it, I have no role in answering it. If ArbCom concludes that the system malfunctioned, I imagine it will be up to the community to decide how to correct whatever defect led to the diagnosed malfunction. I hardly expect anyone to be interested in my advice on how to repair it.

Another conceivable issue before ArbCom is whether the original content dispute leading up to the RfC should be relitigated. But as I understand it, ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, only conduct disputes. And in any event, the normative dispute resolution processes for content disputes were never completed, having been short-circuited by a premature RfC. So if ArbCom decides the original content dispute was never properly litigated, they might remand it back to normative dispute resolution. Should that happen, I would expect to participate in that process.

In the meantime, I have submitted a list of 10 priorities that are of direct interest to me. They do not include a request to be unblocked. It's possible that once those 10 priorities are addressed and resolved, the divide at WP:AN/Moulton will melt away, obviating the need for an RfAr at all. Or there might emerge some residual issues that are more sharply and narrowly defined. In either event, it occurs to me that there is no rush to consume ArbCom resources until other available procedures have run their due course.

Moulton (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. You now seem to have a handle on "how things are done" around here. Your use of terminology is nonstandard, but maybe your lack of using TLA every second sentence is for the best. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a very funny page somewhere around here on TLAs, but I couldn't find it (maybe it was deleted?) ... anyway, I ran across this while looking for it; thought you might like a chuckle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:God:_Valuable_Wikipedian%2C_or_disruptive_editor_with_a_history_of_sockpuppetry%3F
WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A Google search on "site:wikipedia.org+TLA" leads directly to an article on three-letter acronyms. With respect to heavenly flights of fancy through the fifth dimension, see this. —Moulton (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Scrolling down through the Google hits, I'm gonna make a wild guess and say this is the one you had in mind. —Moulton (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! is the one I was thinking of. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Praise be to Google, one of the anodynic antidotes to mind-blindness. —Moulton (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr/Moulton Dismissed as Untimely

On May 29th, after four days, the above RfAr/Moulton was dismissed by User:Daniel as untimely, with a vote tally of (0/4/1/1). —Moulton (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

You have asked at WR: "Should Wikipedia reform its regulatory structure to better respect modern society's concept of Civil Rights and Due Process?"

Why would we do that? How does it help with "improving the accuracy, excellence, and ethics of the content of the encyclopedia (including attendant discussions), with due appreciation for the overarching mission of WMF to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world."?

What is your (scientific I presume) basis for believing this is an optimum use of volunteer resources?

There is no doubt changes need to be made. The question is what changes are best and how to select and implement those changes given the volunteer nature of the community and the goals of the foundation and the goals of the community.

See Phil: "The problem should be understood as a problem of social engineering - how do we train our mobs to behave usefully? Policy should be understood as the increasingly failed attempt to train our mobs via rigid control and stark delineation of what they can and can't do. It hasn't worked." WAS: I agree. I was thinking that our "forever september" problem might best be dealt with by a Foundation sponsored "Our Values" training course with a graduation leveling up experience as carrot. Those who don't care to level up generally already share our core values. for other thoughts. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the question I would have liked to pose to the candidates for the 2008 WMF Board Elections. For example, is it an important aspect of the educational mission of WMF to promote education into issues of human and civil rights around the world? Maybe. Maybe not. If so, do prospective WMF board members believe WMF has an obligation to be a good role model for practicing ideas worth disseminating to children around the world? It seems like an interesting question to me.
I don't know that Wikipedia, as a sponsored project of WMF, would do that, or even think about doing that. But I would be interested in hearing the WMF Board Election Candidates opine on the question, nevertheless. It's less about Wikipedia and more about gaining insight into the beliefs and values of those running for leadership positions at WMF.
One of the things I notice is a substantial amount of volunteer time, system resources, and emotional energy is expended on questions and issues arising in the wake of unjust treatment of would-be participants in the project. As you know, systemic injustice is a source of unpeace and anger. It occurs to me that minimizing the instances of unpeace, indignation, and anger might improve the overall efficiency of the enterprise. It's just a idea of mine, with some grounding in scientific analysis.
As you may know, WAS, I believe that constructing an organizational value system is a worthwhile exercise for any organization that seriously seeks to reach an overarching goal.
Moulton (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: See this message to the ten discussants on the Foundation-l mailing list who had taken up this issue. See also the follow-up with Philippe Beaudette of the WMF Committee on Elections. —Moulton (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiMedia's values, as currently written are

  • Freedom (open formats, open standards, content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse) in short copy left
  • Accessibility and quality (online 24/7, free dumps, DVD's, books, PDF's)
  • Independence (ensure our organization stays free of influence) NPOV should be mentioned here
  • Commitment to openness and diversity (international, no discrimination based on their religion, political beliefs, sexual preferences, nationalities, etc)
  • Transparency
  • Our community is our biggest asset (must respect the work and the ideas of our community)

Perhaps "Civil Rights and Due Process" can be thought of as part of the Foundation's implementation of the "respect" part of its "Our community is our biggest asset" value. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very helpful. On the Meta page, Anthere writes:

Freedom

Personally, I want the WMF to maintain a community free from undue constraints that will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be distributed freely throughout the world. In my opinion, that is the kind of intellectual freedom at the heart of what WMF ought to be setting out to accomplish, and which should be at the core of what we value. I realize this overlaps with the Mission Statement, etc., but frankly it is so basic to what we do, that I think it ought to overlap. Free content, Free tools for collaboration, Freedom to fork, Freedom from undue influences, etc.

I especially resonate with Anthere's allusion to freedom from undue constraints that stifle intellectual freedom and integrity. Since Anthere expresses that sentiment as something the Foundation ought to be adopting as a goal, it's not clear that such a set of organizational or community values currently obtains. (Certainly in my earlier misadventures here, those precepts were manifestly not in evidence.) Perhaps bringing those values to the fore would amount to a disruptive sea change in "the way we do things here." That is to say, it might well be met with considerable resistance from the community.
Moulton (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would guess that you are misreading that. The creation of this values page is a recent endevor by Anthere as part of her effort to implement her recent learnings in how to manage an organization. She is, I believe, trying not to single-handedly declare her vision as our vision, so she is expressing herself softly. That's my reading anyway. I could be wrong of course. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if I am misreading the politics (as opposed to the science, ethics, or imaginative vision) of Anthere's review of WMF values, and their relevance to the English Wikipedia Project. One of the things that has confused me is how to tease apart the surface objective of crafting an authentic English language encyclopedia from the subtext and socio-political dynamics of an MMPONWMG populated by disposable avatars rather than credentialed authors. —Moulton (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that has become clear. I would recommend trying to understand the English language Wikipedia's community dynamics in terms of its historical development from a mere test or gamble or experiment to fix a costly complete failure (Nupedia). The experiment to provide a sandbox as material for Nupedia succeeded beyond anyone's expectations or imaginings as a useful semi-accurate encyclopedia in its own right. The "anyone can edit" aspect seemed to be a magical formula for success, so no one wanted to mess with it (kill the goose that lays the golden egg). The golden eggs are the vetted non-editable encyclopedias we have and will continue to create from the source material created by "anyone can edit" (the goose). Perhaps you tried joining the wrong community. Perhaps one of the communities you wish to join would be one of those that create the vetted non-editable encyclopedias (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD). The trouble is that this unruly wikipedia community and its huge collection of useful unvetted claims in encyclopedic format is so ludicrously popular that everyone wants to get involved here in spite of its manifest limitations. We are hoping that with the stable versions software we can evolve this unreasonably popular semi-accurate encyclopedia into a vetted version. We are making this up as we go. No one has ever done this before. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it hadn't even occurred to me that Wikipedia was an instance of community when I began editing in earnest last August. Previously, I had just made a modest number of incidental edits, mostly small corrections or improvements in articles I happened to be reading in the routine course of my regular work. When I first encountered adversarial editors, it came as something of a shock. This was not how I conceived of a community of practice. What I ran into was more like a community of malpractice. While I suppose it's true that no one had ever tried an open-source wiki-based encyclopedia before, there are plenty of people who have organized successful communities of practice before. Notable among these practitioners is Etienne Wenger who wrote the book on Communities of Practice. —Moulton (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can better understand what I mean by "No one has ever done this before" when I ask you to provide a link to the constantly-updated on-line free-of-cost copy-left encyclopedia with millions of articles in hundreds of languages other than wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The closest analog I know of is SourceForge.Net, which has 178,667 software projects, crafted by 1,860,180 registered participants, programming in dozens of computer languages (with documentation and user interfaces also in dozens of human languages and locales). They have 836 listed projects just for developing Wiki-related software. SourceForge.Net is the world's largest Open Source software development web site, providing free hosting to Open Source software development projects with a centralized resource for managing projects, issues, communications, and code. SourceForge exemplifies communities of practice with many projects ranging toward world-class levels of excellence. —Moulton (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What options do you think we have for implementing such a thing? I am completely unclear what the operational mechanism and safeguards and checks and balances would be to make sure that the intended result was the actual result. Power corrupts. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Civil and Human Rights and Due Process are Constitutional issues. They are so fundamental that no mere interpretive rule or bureaucratic procedure can be permitted to overthrow anything so fundamental as a core cultural value of that caliber. I would like to think that those core values are in there, somewhere in the dialogue that Anthere collated onto that Meta page. She doesn't identify the speaker in this next quote:

Community

I think Florence's idea of 'community' as a collaborative, cooperative, mix of supporters is a highly significant value. In that case communications has a lot to do with listening and sharing from all parties. And 'community' is central to what makes us successful, it's where so much of our strength, capacity, and energy flourishes.

In view of that reinforcing remark, I find it hard to understand why it's been so difficult for other voices to be heard in the conversation, and why there has been so much contention and divisiveness over whether other voices deserve a hearing.
I agree that power corrupts. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one affordance that operates reliably as a check against the undue exercise of power. That affordance is the freedom (and obligation) to bear accurate witness. It's the only power I have. And it's also the only power the enterprise of science has. When I do my best to bear accurate witness, I am also doing my best to be faithful to the protocols of the scientific method. I know of no other reliable method to overthrow the delusions and depredations of unbridled political power.
Over at MIT, a young Muser, whom I first met online when she was 12 years old, had invited me to join her friends in the Freshman dorm for dinner one evening. On the wall of her dorm suite was this remarkable poster:
Knowledge Is Power.
Study Hard.
Become Evil.
Moulton (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If the operational mechanism for Civil and Human Rights and Due Process is the freedom to bear accurate witness then you and we already have it. Ain't no tape on your mouth. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that I can publish my best and most reliable view of the ground truth as best as I am able to construct it, either on my own personal web site, on my personal blog, on the Media Ethics blog, on Wikipedia Review, on other forums like World Crossing or Slashdot, here on my WP talk page, or on other Wikis besides the English Wikipedia. The ethical question in my mind is whether speaking the truth as I perceive it advances the goals of education, healing, and peace, all of which I hold dear. There are some remarks I can publish — remarks as close to God's Truth as any mortal would ever hope to get — which would likely cause some individuals to suffer grievously. This is where the Ethics of Care becomes difficult to apply. My best guidance on this conundrum comes from a seminal thinker named Hillel, who said, "If I am not for me, who will be? But if I am only for me, what am I?" For reasons known only to higher powers than moi, my cup runneth over today with delicious ethical conundrums. —Moulton (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You ask in the edit summary "The Ethics of Speaking the Truth to Power — When is it timely?" Answer: When evidence based reasoning indicates it will do more good than other available options. (not "more good than harm" - there is a difference) Which you know, and thus you ask above "The ethical question in my mind is whether speaking the truth as I perceive it advances the goals of education, healing, and peace, all of which I hold dear." The "truth as I perceive it" is an interesting concept. As you know all humans self-deceive and have other mental limitations to some degree. So part of the equation becomes, "To what degree can I count on my perception of truth regarding this matter to be free of error caused by my limitations (self-deceptions, repression, delusion, ignorance, stupidity)?" The scientific answer for that is objective consensus among informed sane people. There appears to be an objective consensus by people at various web-sites about your behavior that you find perplexing. (added note: While the WR discussion shows some problems with FM's evidence, these 3 links provided by you adequately show my meaning [2] [3] [4] ) That would appear to be the result of your mind (sub or un or non conscious) hiding something from you (conscious). What might that be? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The core challenge of epistemology has vexed philosophers for ages. Here is another remarkable consensus of the caliber you allude to. But before anyone becomes too intoxicated with the colorful Kool Aid there, you might ask yourself two questions: How did I come into possession of that traffic, and why do I have it publicly posted on my personal web site? I'll leave that as a tantalizing puzzle, the solution to which may or may not be still available to the intrepid Google searcher. Meantime, have you gotten to the remarkable Bela/SimHacker connection yet? —Moulton (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(<---)I guess you don't care to discuss your psychology. Most people don't, so I'll drop it. Care to provide a link to the "Bela/SimHacker connection" and tell me what you wish me to notice about it? WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Is that you wanted me to talk about?!? My psychology? Sure. No problem. I talked about that at some length here. (Note that this link goes to a section of Wikipedia Review which is not accessible unless you are logged in. Please feel free to join in the discussion there.) As to the Bela/SimHacker connection, FeloniousMonk has helpfully supplied that here. —Moulton (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Logical positivism is useful in helping to find a way out of confusing semantic circularity by teaching us to relate propositions to objective perceptions of the physical world. (For any given proposition, imagine there are two universes absolutely identical except the proposition is true in one universe and false in the other - then ask the question "What objective experiment will tell me which universe I am in?" If there is no conceivable experiment that will answer that question, then the proposition has no objective meaning, although it may have motivational or emotional meaning and usefulness.) Boil the issue down to "what should I do next". That is in fact what the brain evolved to do - decide what to do next. Further I have found from experience that I can trust my brain more at deciding what I should do next than other questions such as what should someone else do next or what will I be doing next year. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

These are very interesting ideas. With respect to the first challenge, I would begin by gathering some evidence. I would canvass the inhabitants of the universe and ask them, "Is this the universe where Proposition X is believed to be true?" I would then employ the methods of reasoning which Raymond Smullyan teaches his students to employ when dealing with the confusing lands of the Knights and Knaves. (There is an instantiation of this once-popular learning experience on MicroMuse in Professor Griffin's Logic Quest.) The question of "what should I do next" is also taken up in this 36-question template for the Socratic Method, which is inspired by the Lamed-Vav. (Each indispensible member of the Lamed-Vav WP:OWNs one of the key questions. If that required interlocutor is absent when that question becomes timely and germane, the Maieutic Process (discovery learning process) stops cold. And we wouldn't want that to happen, now, would we?) So... Do we know what we want to do next? ₪  ;) —Moulton (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. If you want me to read this, you'll need to copy it here.
  2. I still don't know what you wish me to notice about this.
  3. Asking experts "Is this the universe where Proposition X is believed to be true?" makes sense; asking average people, less so.
  4. I am unclear as to the usefulness of the 36-question template.
  5. "Do we know what we want to do next?" I know what I want to do next.
WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. I can't copy it here for two reasons, WAS. The main reason is that it's a threaded conversation with others. Among them are Dan Tobias And Alison Cassidy. If you are unprepared to join us in the conversation there, you are welcome to ask either of them to summarize it for you. They have my unqualified permission to reproduce, paraphrase, or summarize my portion of the conversation. The second reason is that it's UBB-coded, so that at best I could extract the source HTML. But I don't know how to reproduce HTML inside of Wiki.
  2. What I wish you to notice is that FeloniousMonk has cited some "evidence" from another web forum (at WorldCrossing.Com) in support of his thesis that purports to characterize me in a particular way. I am not sufficiently familiar with WP:Syn to know if that guideline applies, but I direct it to your attention, for your own independent peer review of a fellow Wikipedian.
  3. What intrigues me about Smullyan's remarkable method is that it works even when the average inhabitant is either known to be a knave, or suspected to be one. He offers a reliable way to arrive at the ground truth, even when relying on input from unreliable sources.
  4. The 36-question template is just a reminder to help ensure that no important question goes unasked.
  5. If you don't mind my asking, WAS, what do you want to do next?
Moulton (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I said "That would appear to be the result of your mind (sub or in or non conscious) hiding something from you (conscious). What might that be?" You seemed not interested in talking about that so I then said "I guess you don't care to discuss your psychology. Most people don't, so I'll drop it." to which you replied "Oh! Is that you wanted me to talk about?!? My psychology? Sure. No problem. I talked about that at some length here." You say you talk about it, so I was not asking you to copy someone else's comments, and not even all your own, just those parts that you wish to be your next response in this conversation. You can copy them to a subpage, link it and let me worry about making sense of HTML dumped on a wiki page - I can edit the subpage and read it in its HTML formatting - I've done that before. Or you can simply continue this discussion by typing in new sentences regardless of whether they are represented elsewhere or not. The issue I wish to discuss has to do with behavior of yours that pisses people off and your recommendations for websites that do not seem to change in over 10 years even when the websites have different people, different social structures and different goals. You seem lacking in self-awareness about this; but I find you in general very self aware so I question the accuracy of my understanding.

FeloniousMonk's page on you is a standard gathering of evidence well within "how we do things here". This sort of thing is needed in figuring out how to deal with people. Surely you would want Wikipedia to deal with people on the basis of openly gathered information rather than a star chamber. But also how we do things here is to "do no harm" as much as possible, so if you object to that page, he should take that into account. He could blank the page and access it (for editing or linking) thru its history or he could delete it so only admins can read it. If you make your concerns known to him thru email, I'm sure he will try to accommodate your concerns.

Logic games based on constructs like "always tell the truth" and "always tell a lie" don't seem to me to say much about a reality in which truths are half truths that can serve as lies in some contexts and lies can serve to motivate the kind of behavior a person would make if he knew the whole truth in some contexts. If a blind man incorrectly thinks the white button rather than the black button will do what he wants and he asks me the color of the button am I lying if I answer accurately yet do not tell him he is mistaken in thinking what pushing it will do?

What do I want to do next? On this page? In life off the net? Can you narrow down "with regard to what"?

WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can arrange for me to create or edit subpages in my user space here, I will construct or reprise some extended content along the lines you request. Otherwise, I am obliged to construct such documents off-wiki, in venues which provide the technical and functional affordances to support the construction of such pages.
Regarding so-called blind spots, I imagine we all have them. If I knew what mine were, they wouldn't be my blind spots, would they? But if you think you know what some of my blind spots are, perhaps you could spell them out in clear terms. However, I would ask that you support your original theories with evidence and reasoning, so that I may regard them with the appropriate scientific perspective.
If you wish to discuss dimensions of my behavior to which you or others take exception, I am more than willing to listen and to explore those issues with you, in the spirit of discovery learning and personal growth.
I have long recommended the adoption of best practices in any system that I've taken an interest in. For many years I was employed by the Bell System to devise best practices for the operation of the telephone network. I regret to say that since my departure from Bell Labs, some twenty years ago, I have not been sanguine about the direction of change.
My concerns about the biographical sketches that Filll and FeloniousMonk have crafted in their respective users spaces is that they have not yet been peer reviewed. If the editors of Wikipedia are going to conduct original research to craft biographical sketches, I would hope there is some kind of peer review process to see if their theories are properly supported by evidence and reasoning, in accordance with the protocols of the scientific method. I also understand that the English Wikipedia has additional internal criteria, such as WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP#Non-article_space. For example, is "Bela" at World Crossing a reliable source per WP:RS? Is "notluom" at World Crossing a reliable source per WP:RS?
With regard to the blind man, what do you believe your ethical obligation is when crafting an answer to his question?
What do you want to do next regarding our dialogues here?
Moulton (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary and Capricious Brokenness

If you can not edit User talk:Moulton/sandbox then you can edit this page twice - first to add the html and second to delete it - I can access the history version and read it.

I think you have a blind spot in the area of anger. Stuff you do that causes it in others (yet tell yourself you are perplexed at their motivation). And occasions when you act motivated by it (yet tell yourself your motivation is otherwise). I am not motivated to prove this with extended evidence and reasoning. If I am right, you will eventually see that some of your perplexity can be accounted for by this. But perhaps I am wrong. Think about it.

Please tell FeloniousMonk of your concerns. Perhaps he can label his researches as "original research" or "non peer reviewed" or some other label that will satisfy you. Our standards for article and talk and project space differ as the point of the spaces differs.

With regard to the blind man, I believe the truth-telling ethical obligation when crafting an answer to his question is to answer him as I would want myself to be answered were I in his shoes. ( I added "truth-telling" as it occurred to me that other ethical obligations can conflict - suppose he is evil and wants to know which button destroys the world.)

"What do you want to do next regarding our dialogues here?" Respond to each other constructively, politely, interestingly one response at a time so long as we are motivated to continue communicating. As you do not wish to be unbanned, the motivations may wane; yet as you are interesting to talk to, that will not necessarily become the case.

WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See the Blocking Template, below, Current Blocking Template
I have feelings of injustice, pretty much like most people, WAS. However I don't tend to pump adrenalin when angered, mainly because I am a redhead. So instead of responding with anger or even righteous indignation, I tend to respond elsewhere on The Phreaking Spectrum. Do you have any thoughts about that, WAS?
I will take under advisement your suggestions (e.g. "Please tell FeloniousMonk of your concerns.") regarding the most appropriate way to deal with FeloniousMonk, Filll, and their allied editors from the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, regarding their designs on me.
I am content to dialogue with you indefinitely, WAS, until such time as you deem it no longer constructive, productive, or pleasurable.
Moulton (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The demonstration section contained what appears to be our current standard block template (boilerplate). I read it just fine.
Perhaps what I am calling "anger" you are calling "feelings of injustice". But I get the feeling you are repressing knowledge of the degree to which it motivates behavior in yourself or are repressing knowledge of your behavior's emotional effects on others since you claim to be perplexed. Adrenalin is not a necessary part of the motivational consequences of what I am calling "anger". (I believe I am using the word in a standard way, but arguing over a definition of "anger" seems to me to be beside the point.)
It is not clear to me that I made "suggestions regarding the most appropriate way to deal with FeloniousMonk, Filll, and their allied editors from the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, regarding their designs on me."
WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you find any irregularities in the content of the current blocking template, below? In your mind, is it a factually accurate statement of my current status and attendant reasons for that status, as ratified by the community?
If you wish for me to become aware of the emotional effects my expression of my feelings of injustice is having on others, it would be helpful to me if they would candidly express the name of their affective emotional state in plain English. If there are any here who suffer from alexithymia, I would be happy to interview them to see if we could come to joint and mutually agreeable understanding of the proper dictionary name of their affective emotional state in the wake of my various actions seeking redress of grievance since last August 21st. Incidentally, a helpful text on appreciating the nuances of anger is an insightful book which I've had on my shelf for a quarter century: Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion, by Carol Tavris. Rather than "seeing red" (pumping Adrenalin), I tend to clench my teeth, instead. That's my classic somatic response to a nagging perplexity.
—Moulton (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The blocking template below is a typical example of how we bite newbies in spite of our rule not to. We simply have no good way to deal with "anyone can edit". Think of it like a talking dog. The amazing thing is that we can roughly live up to "anyone can edit" at all - asking us to do it well is like insisting that a talking dog speak perfect English. Show me another site that is doing this better.
While it would be helpful to you if others would candidly express the name of their affective emotional state in plain English, people almost never act that way, and I seriously doubt that people are going to begin acting that way. Instead people usually express their emotions rather than name them. Different people respond to anger in different ways. Giano has expressed how he has "cold anger". You say you clench your teeth. I tend towards displacement activity. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The WP:BITE aspect of my entrée into the socio-political dynamics of the English Wikipedia led me to muse on the Scarlet Lettering of participants in this curious enterprise.
It occurs to me that the "anyone can edit" concept may have been unwise. Scholarpedia seems to have a more traditional model of who is vetted and qualified to construct articles for an online encyclopedia.
I am also intrigued by the phenomena of displacement and transference in these dynamics. Is it fair to posit that there are any number of deep-seated psychological issues that are routinely being reinstantiated or reified in the laps of unsuspecting newcomers, to see if the antagonized newcomers perchance enflesh a more rational, professional, or efficacious solution to the aforementioned reified burning issues than the initiating protagonists have ever witnessed in these pages before? —Moulton (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence does not parse for me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. That sentence does need some word-smithing, doesn't it? Perhaps the dynamic is best illustrated by a parable. —Moulton (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---) Better, I guess, but I'm still not understanding.

Is it fair to posit (How could it be unfair? Perhaps you refer to fairly representing the evidence rather than fair in terms of morality?) that there are any number (Meaning "many" I take it as opposed to a more literal interpretation.) of deep-seated psychological issues (links to "drama"; which is short hand around here for superficial lolz activity. I take it you are referring to the interplay of psychologies in a Greek-tragedy kind of way.) that are routinely (meaning too often or meaning as a rule?) being reinstantiated or reified in the laps (I don't get this at all. "in the laps" throws me.) of unsuspecting newcomers (meaning like you), to see (for the purpose?) if the antagonized newcomers (meaning like you) perchance (really do you mean this word here? aren't you just being poetic with this word? it conflicts with the rest of the sentence which implies deliberate, hence it confuses rather than functions poetically) enflesh (as in to create an actual thing) a more rational, professional, or efficacious solution (I lost you here completely. What are you talking about? whose solution to what is what?) to the aforementioned reified burning issues than the initiating protagonists (initiated what? who is who? both sides see the other as initiating so who this is depends on the eyes this is seen though and that is not made clear in this omniscient-view narrative.) have ever (ever; really ever?) witnessed in these pages (meaning the English language wikipedia) before?

WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By fair I meant an objectively accurate portrait. I am using the term drama in the context of an analytical model of a dramatic structure involving two or more dramatic characters. The dramatic story line need not be a classical Greek tragedy, such as a hero-goat story, although that's certainly a familiar kind of story. I was using 'lap' as in "Fred dropped an unanticipated problem in my lap." Perchance simply means there is some unknown probability of anyone discovering a functional solution to the problem Fred dropped in the would-be problem-solver's lap. Enflesh means to enact or perform the presumptive solution that Fred was seeking. The notion is that Fred would be gratified if someone — anyone — acted back a usable solution to the burning issue that long has haunted dear old Fred. —Moulton (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Blocking Template

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.

Editing from Moulton (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by FeloniousMonk for the following reason(s):

Disruptive editing: Restoring community ban, arbcom rejected reopening case. no grounds for undertow to reduce ban duration

This block has been set to expire: indefinite.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email.

[edit] FYI

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton#Well, time to archive I said "I see no benefit in concluding this without a clear statement that Moulton does or does not wish to be unblocked and if he wishes to be unblocked a clear statement that he will or will not try to abide by "how things are done around here". He is blocked. It is up to him to make his intentions clear. Until then, we don't need to make any choices for change." I would be more than happy to place there any response you wish me to place there. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not requested to be unblocked. The community's current review of the circumstances of last year (and the aftermath) may or may not lead the participants of the English Wikipedia to conclusively determine if the original handling (and subsequent initial review) of my case was normative or not. If the Wikipedia community at large determines it was all perfectly normative, then that will satisfy me and I will have no further interest in participating in the English Wikipedia community, going forward. So far, the community's opinion on that issue appears to be mixed, unsettled, and undecided. You may find a clear statement of my intentions upthread as well. —Moulton (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it "normative" for a politician to be heckled at a speech? In civil society there are freedoms of speech and other abilities allowed that while not recommended and even discouraged are none-the-less not treated as crimes. Wikipedia is close to anarchy. I'm guessing such an unruly place is not to your taste. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on the prevailing political culture. But I do not frequent political cultures very often. Rather I frequent academic and scientific cultures, where hectoring and Narcissistic wounding are not a featured aspect of the culture. —Moulton (talk)
Wikipedia is not at all like a hall at a university where participants engage in academic and scientific discussions. Not at all. It is, instead, more like Central Park in NY NY. Over here to the left there is hectoring and Narcissistic wounding. Under the bridge in front of us there was a mugging (bullying). As we walk along you can hear the group of students behind us argue philosophy. On the park bench there is a 13 year old enjoying his game-boy. But imagine the park is virtual and designated as a place to prepare content that will in the end be shaped into an encyclopedia (but this virtual encyclopedia sandbox central park is being used as if it were the finished encyclopedia because there is nothing else remotely as useful and available), so there is no need for police as such, just a need for volunteer administrators to reset your avatar if something happens. Now imagine your avatar is mugged. You are asked, "do you wish to have your avatar reset? You say "Mu." WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged? —Moulton (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your avatar was murdered by a squad of cops. But no worries mate, just ask to be resurrected. We do it all the time. It's all part of the fun. I was indef blocked by an arbcom member (Fred) at one point. Didn't last more than a few hours though. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The concept of requesting the Keystone crucifiers to perform the act of resurrection seems quaintly at odds with the standard script for that popular drama. I wonder what Caprice, the Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel would think of that notion? I daresay she would simply gambol in, sing a spiritually uplifting song, gambol out, and let it go at that. —Moulton (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, I answer a Central Park mugging with a Gezunta hugging. Moulton (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps we can visualize your avatar being evicted from this virtual central park by volunteer grounds keepers who claim you vandalized a park statue's plaque, while you claim you were removing graffiti written by the volunteer grounds keepers. Now you are picketing outside the park on Review street, refusing to come back in because you don't trust the ground keepers' internal review committee. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a more elegant steed to suggest as an inspirational park statue. —Moulton (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Being red-green color blind limits my appreciation of such art. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In Le Saut, the horse closest to the viewer is green with a red mane and tail. The middlemost horse is blue with a blue mane and brownish tail. The third horse is red with a red mane; its tail cannot be seen. The sun is orange and the left background panel is bronze. —Moulton (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---)What is the artistic significance (emotional impact/referencial associations) of these color choices as opposed to other possible choices? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The descriptions of Azoulay's work typically focus on his idiosyncratic use of flowing lines, rather than his use of colors. —Moulton (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The flowing lines in that image don't do anything for me. I do appreciate Peter Max and the Mandelbrot set though. I think nature creates better art than humans; or more accurately, I believe that our artistic sensibilities are based on psychological processes based on processing reality-based sensory input. LSD experiments in the 60s by psychologists were informative concerning those processes.WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that Vincent van Gogh doesn't move you either. Starry Night has contour lines, similar to the dominant feature of Azoulay's style. If you like Peter Max, I'm going to guess you would like this Flash animation of Glass Onion. —Moulton (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the story of Vincent van Gogh; but his work and the work of great artists like Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol are not generally to my taste; although there are some specific works of art that they have created that do move me. I do not mistake my taste for right taste; and I object to experts that do. I do not have flash enabled on my computer. I use dial-up, and I have decided flash isn't worth my time. I plan to upgrade in the next couple of years in hardware, software and communications but I have yet to make a choice. I'm not seeing, so far, something that is what I want. Everything seems broken by design. Linux and Myth TV look promising. If they don't pan out; I'll probably buy something from Apple. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Your rig is even more antiquated than mine. All my gear is salvaged from the high-tech cast-off junk pile. Most of it is at least ten years old. But I do have Verizon DSL. I use Ubuntu Linux and Macintosh OS X. I have Windows XP and Windows 2000 in reserve for those rare occasions when it's the only OS for selected applications.
Regarding tastes in art and music, I will offer a speculative theory (as I am often wont to do). Melancholy and contemplative artists (like Albrecht Dürer, Vincent van Gogh, Pablo Picasso, and Guillame Azoulay) would be characteristically low in the neuropeptide known as Dopamine. Artists like Peter Max, with their hallucinogenic and psychedelic styles would be characteristically higher in their Dopamine levels. Excessively high levels of Dopamine can make a person see visual hallucinations, hear auditory hallucinations, and even become paranoid, delusional, and schizophrenic. Artists are wont to create artistic renderings of what's going on inside their heads. As a child, when I was running a fever, my dreams were like a time-lapse movie of the creation of a Jackson Pollack painting, with accompanying crescendo of an audio cacophony. Since (like van Gogh) I am a redhead, I have uncharacteristically low levels of Dopamine; hence I tend toward the melancholy, and contemplative side of the Dopamine Axis.
If things seem "broken by design" it may be that their lack of functionality arises because they were not designed by qualified system engineers who are adept at system design. See Don Norman's 1998 book on The Design of Everyday Things, his 2004 book on Emotional Design and his newest book, The Design of Future Things.
Moulton (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---)There is no doubt in my mind why Microsoft products seem broken by design. They are. On purpose. When founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen first started putting out software to sell, Paul wanted to include a lot of stuff that he knew the user was going to want and need, but Bill said no and they had a yelling match that was overheard by others. Bill insisted that they only include what the users knew they wanted and save what they would soon learn they needed for an upgrade to sell them them; and the upgrade would likewise deliberately not have things that the user would need but not know they needed until after they bought the upgrade. Bill is a success as a businessman and a failure as a human being. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that I frequently get zinged for intentionally including content that I can reasonably anticipate a consumer will soon be wanting, shortly after consuming the appetizer and main course. But for reasons unbeknownst to me, the delivery agent routinely strips out the happy endings, leaving the hapless customer hungry for more. —Moulton (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not relevant unless the customer in your case typically can be expected to not anticipate that they will be wanting what you anticipate they will want. People know ahead of time about deserts. People do not know ahead of time about software utility interfaces or specific functionalities of software packages. It is like buying a car and finding out after you bought it that it lacks spark plugs. And requires special patented spark plugs that cost 10% of a new car. It is a deliberate rip off. It is an abuse of monopoly. That they have been convicted of. But the Bush administration has refused to administer the law as written by congress. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since my business is science education, it's reasonable to model the consumer as someone who does not yet appreciate what interesting new questions will arise as soon as she has digested the answer to today's question. Authors of stories and textbooks typically supply information in the nominal order in which the typical learner constructs it. Assembling jigsaw puzzles would be a lot easier if loose pieces arrived in your field of view just about the time there arises a place to put them. To the extent that I have a slight head start on seeing the big picture, I tend to make subtle references to what's coming into view on the horizon, just a little ahead of when most pedestrian students would be ready for it. It's like Tetris, where they give you a little preview of what's coming next. —Moulton (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone paid you to teach them a subject to help them with a specific task, would you consider it ethical to teach them lots of information about the topic but to deliberately withhold key information they needed to deal with the specific task - and require a second payment for an advanced course that would then cover most but not all of that task specific information - and then to require a third payment for another course for what was left out on purpose of that course? I don't think so. That's the morality of Microsoft and it stinks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. Requiring a supplementary fee would be unethical. But when I coach or mentor via the Socratic Method, I do intentionally withhold key information — namely the next piece of the puzzle I want them to discover for themselves. The "payment" that I do require is that they pay attention. If they aren't paying attention when I am intentionally withholding the next key piece of information, they generally fail to figure it out, and the Constructivist Learning Process comes to a screeching halt. —Moulton (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

You may remember introducing yourself to me some months ago. Your RfC was in many ways similar to mine. At the time, I could only give your case a cursory glance, but I've recently been very interested (and amused, etc.) to delve deeper into the expansive and still-growing record. In addition to a physical trait we may share with one Sandy, we seem to share a remarkably similar experience here. I admire your patience and persistence, respect the professional level of civility you maintain, and appreciate your occasional injections of humor ("neener," e.g., was a gem). Know that I continue to observe your case with great interest. Cheers and regards, Gnixon (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (<-- ducks and covers)

Greetings, Gnixon, and welcome to Moulton's MicroShtetl. Is it indeed possible that you, SandyGeorgia, and I are all redheads? If so, that might explain our similar demeanor in these similar cases. Being a scientist and a science educator, I am obliged not only to have patience and perseverance, but to demonstrate that trait for the benefit of any budding young scientists who might look to me as a role model. I am looking forward to getting to know you and Sandy better, and discovering how we may best collaborate in pursuit of common goals. —Moulton (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My grin is growing greater as the CTP proceeds. Gnixon (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I looked up CTP and the closest thing I could come to anything even remotely relevant to your interests was Center for Theoretical Physics of which there are two or three, including one at Berkeley and one at MIT. Somehow I have the odd feeling that I'm probably looking at the wrong libretto here. —Moulton (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
L->T; see discussion above. I was hoping to fly under the casual radar, as with the exposed "trait"/"Sandy" reference. Mast seems to be nudging things toward a legitimate debate. Gnixon (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're flying under my radar, too. So, now I think you might be talking about cytidine triphosphate (CTP) or CTP synthase and/or the role of teleomeres (cutting things off) or concatemers (stringing things out), in the context of high-energy dialogues. Am I getting close? Or am I a million light-years away? —Moulton (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
L="learning" became T. Sorry for the goose chase.  :) Gnixon (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Constructivist Teaching/Learning Process. Got it. Finally. (Whew.) :) —Moulton (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Sorry, Too

Judge Paul Mahoney, the presiding judge in the East Boston Municipal Court where Star Simpson's case was continued month after month for nine months, has finally dismissed the felony charges and called for an apology.

And well he should.

I, for one, am very sorry.

I'm sorry the well paid and highly trained security staff at Logan Airport were unable to distinguish a simple electric light bulb circuit from a nuclear detonator. And I'm sorry the officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts saw fit to spend nine months and Guvnor knows how much of the taxpayer's money on a criminal case that they must have known from the outset could not have gone forward on the basis of the "hoax" statute or the evidence.

Star Simpson is 20 years old. She was 13 years old and living in Hawaii when 9/11 occurred. When I was 13 years old and living in Omaha, I barely knew anything about what was going on in Boston, a thousand miles away from Nebraska.

But more to the point, it was 109 years before Star Simpson was even born that Thomas Alva Edison wired up the very first electric light bulb circuit — an electric power source, a piece of wire, and a light bulb. Today, that ubiquitous light bulb circuit can be found in your car headlights, in your table lamp, in your flashlight, strung out on your Christmas tree, in your children's twinkling sneakers, and embedded in colorful drinks served at the Rainforest Cafe.

I find it utterly astonishing that highly trained and highly paid security officials at Logan Airport are evidently unfamiliar with this ubiquitous circuit that has been part of American culture for 129 years, and unable to recognize it upon close inspection.

And I am chagrined that the Prosecutor in this case — Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley — honestly believed for nine long and aggravating months that he could prove in a Court of Law that Star Simpson intended to fool anyone (least of all Major Scott Pare of the State Police) with such a commonplace piece of everyday technology as a simple flashlight circuit with a dime-store 9-volt transistor radio battery and nine tiny lights arranged in an asterisk design to symbolize Star's name.

When I was a 20-year old undergraduate in Electrical Engineering at the University of Nebraska, I did what every other classmate of mine did. I wired up a light bulb circuit and stuck it inside a red clip-on bow tie to wear during Engineer's Week. That's how we greeted the visitors who came to see our projects. And that was in 1965. People laughed. They didn't panic and summon the Nebraska State Police to pull out semi-automatic Uzis and Prosecutorial Kiboshnikovs.

As a science educator, I am sorry to say we have failed miserably to educate the lay public, the police, and responsible public officials in the rudiments of the simple electric light bulb circuit — a battery, a piece of wire, and a light bulb.

To awe-struck officials like District Attorney Daniel Conley, Major Scott Pare of the State Police, and MassPort spokesman Phil Orlandella, a genius of the caliber of Thomas Alva Edison must have been as a God to them, producing inconceivable miracles of artificial light the likes of which mere public officials can neither imagine nor shrug off as no big thang in this day and age.

Remind me not to carry an unconcealed iPod or an iPhone when picking up friends at Logan Airport. I wouldn't want to give them a scare.

Moulton Lava (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Half the world has a double digit IQ. What do you expect? I remember a case where a uniformed policemen asked a man to hand over what looked like nunchucks; the man put up a fight; the policeman was about to really let him have it when a bystander yelled "He's blind!" The policeman had assumed his uniform was enough identification, but the blind man with the collapsible cane thought he was being mugged. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My answer to a Keystone Kop mugging is a Genzunta hugging. —Moulton Lava (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, please tone down the degree to which you're using Wikipedia as a mirror and feeder site for your blog. MastCell Talk 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a published guideline about that? —Moulton (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.

Is the present discussion with WAS 4.250 not a Wikipedia-related topic? —Moulton (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Blogging about wikipedia is not what wikipedia is for either. Wikipedia talk space is supposed to be used to make wikipedia better. A question for any specific use of a wikipedia page, to ask yourself is: would people contributing money to WikiMedia approve of the use of the servers and internet access that they paid for, for this use of this wikipedia page. We got rid of a lot of "fun" type pages here at wikipedia (we even had go games being played by editors on a wikipedia page at one point). We cracked down on all that as we became more popular - and so did not need the candy to attract helpers - and more professional. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
MastCell is 100% correct in his understanding of policy about use of user pages (content policies) and interaction with others (behavior policies) when he asked you to "please tone down the degree to which you're using Wikipedia as a mirror and feeder site for your blog." If this had gone on much further, I would have done that myself. Leeway is given to some degree to newbies we wish to encourage to become productive editors and that is my hope for you. If in the end you decide not to even care to ask to be unblocked, eventually this page should also be blocked as we are not a blog site. But we seem to be making progress. Aren't we? Oh, also, once someone becomes an established editor; they are given leeway in proportion to their perceived contributions (we don't do due process, we don't do justice, we don't do revenge - we make pragmatic choices on what we think will help in creating a useful encyclopedia). We don't wish to drive away people who are helping. Also, thank you KillerChihuahua, for your help in answering Moulton's question. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we do ethics? When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concludes it erred, what obligation does Wikimedia have to update the story, so that the worldwide consumers of these stories are not left with a false impression? —Moulton (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting question. As it turns out, the original concept did not include ethics other than 1:copy-left and 2:all human knowledge and 3:to all mankind which was based on 1:a libertarian concept of freedom 2:the idea that more knowledge is always better and the solution to wrong points of view is more information 3:nondiscrimination between humans.
BLP was our first major additional ethical vision added to that and it took a while to get a majority on board with that (there are still some holdouts among those who have been here the longest).
You are arguing for a more comprehensive vision of ethical obligation. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. It is a political process to influence opinion and to change policy. Your involvement is seen as not backed by practical experience in actually making the content better. May I recommend you gain experience rather than argue from a purely theoretical point of view? WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's an interesting question, and one that I believe deserves some serious reflection.
Over on Wikipedia Review, I watched with more than a little interest as Doc Glasgow made a valiant effort to raise the BLP issue to the attention of the community at large. And my spirits frankly fell when he threw in the towel.
It's not for me to say if my view is right or wrong. I don't even know that those two labels are particularly meaningful. I'm interested in evovolving from current practices to ever better practices, enroute to an elusive and asymptotic goal of best practices. Along that route, I can see prior practices and future practices, but I wouldn't want to have to label any of them as right or wrong in some absolute sense.
Being an Anthropologist from Mars, I know how to do scientific process. I don't have the first clue how Earthlings do political process (and not just in the English Wikipedia, but pretty much anywhere on this curious planet).
While I have a pretty good idea of what better content would look like to an objective observer, I frankly have no idea how to make the content better. The notion of making other (competing) editors do anything against their will is abhorrent to the very quick of my bones. Nor do I have the first clue how to empower and enable others to see a better way.
If people wish to craft a better way, I have some ideas that may be of interest.
But as Professor Griffin points out, only the elite are permitted to enter the forest.
And I trust you do know Professor Griffin's memorable definition of "elite".
Moulton (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"And I trust you do know Professor Griffin's memorable definition of "elite"." Nope. Not a clue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foo's Clues

Upthread, WAS, you expressed some appreciation for my introduction into these conversations, links to one or two Socratic dialogues by Philosopher/Logician Raymond Smullyan. Since you appreciate his presentation of Logical Positivism, permit me to introduce you to another of his specialties, Combinatorial Logic, which you will find in a remarkable book entitled, To Mock a Mockingbird...

To Mock a Mockingbird

To Mock a Mockingbird is a gentle and humorous introduction to Combinatory Logic and the associated metamathematics, built on an elaborate ornithological analogy.

Smullyan's exposition takes the form of an imaginative account of an intrepid adventurer (Inspector Craig) going deep into a forest and discovering the unusual species of ornithological creatures to be found there. Each species of bird in Smullyan's imaginative forest represents a particular kind of function (known technically as a combinator) appearing in the conventional treatment of Combinatory Logic. Each bird has a distinctive call, which it sings in response to the call of another bird. Hence an initial call by certain initiator birds gives rise to a cascading sequence of calls by a succession of birds.

Deep inside the forest dwells the fabled and fabulous Mockingbird, which echoes back the bird calls it hears. The Mockingbird acts like a reflecting mirror, deep inside the forest. When the cascading sequence of bird calls bounces off the Mockingbird, an echoic cascade wends its way back to the thinner edges of the forest. The resulting cascade of calls and responses analogizes insightfully to abstract models of computing. With this powerful analogy in hand, one can explore advanced topics in the mathematical theory of computability, such as Church-Turing Computability and Gödel's Theorem.

For many students, this whimsical approach to Combinatory logic (which is functionally equivalent to the considerably more daunting Lambda Calculus) is a branch of Symbolic Logic having the expressive power of Set Theory, but graced with deeply insightful and powerful connections to fundamental questions of computability and provability.

At one point in the arboreal adventure, when the forest is getting especially dark and deep, our intrepid explorer comes to a sentinel guarding the entrance to the Master Forest.

THE MASTER FOREST
ONLY THE ELITE ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER!

And there, on page 167 of To Mock a Mockingbird, you will discover that you really did have a clue after all.

Moulton (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Relevance to Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Star Simpson was arrested on September 21, 2007. On that same day a BLP on Star Simpon was created here on the English Wikipedia. It immediately became nominated as an Article for Deletion. The AFD / Star Simpson discussion ran for a week. There was also a parallel article on the event at Logan Airport, "Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident", which was also was nominated as an Article for Deletion. The AFD / Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident discussion ran concurrently with the one on the Star Simpson BLP, and both AFD's ended together on September 29th with final decisions to delete.

A nearly comprehensive news article on WikiNews — "Student arrested over "art" shirt with exposed wiring at Boston Airport" — was the sole surviving WikiMedia article of the three. It occurs to me that the project history demonstrates that this topic is relevant to Wikipedia, if for no other reason than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vacated its felony charges against Star Simpson as unsupported by the forensic evidence as applied to the "hoax device" statute invoked by the District Attorney. The State could not possibly prove intent, because to do so would have required them to prove an undeniable and trivially demonstrated falsehood in a public court of law. And the evidence that Ms. Simpson's so-called "hoax device" fooled no one can be found in the second photograph of the very first news story on the arrest, published in the Boston Globe just a few hours after she was arrested by a squadron of Massachusetts State Police brandishing machine guns.

And now for a Moultonic News Quiz: Can you find the middle finger of Scott Pare's right hand in that above cited story? Is that evidence of anything relevant and germane to the story? Support your analysis with coherent and defensible reasoning.

Moulton (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, your talk page in an inappropriate place for these concerns. Would you like to be unblocked for the purpose of making relevant comments on talk and project (like articles for deletion) pages? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish for Wikipedians to do what they think is best. —Moulton (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on WikNews story, calling for an update. —Moulton (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Choice A) tell other people how to spend their volunteer time. Choice B} create an updated article and place a link at the old article to the update article. Which choice is more helpful? Which choice is less annoying? Which choice is less narcissistic? Wikinews is very very short of manpower. They need your help. Choose B. (Now look who is telling someone how to spend their free time! Ha!) WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, WAS, things work a little differently over at WikiNews, and I've left a note on Moulton's Wikinews talk page discussing his comment. (About half of what you've said is valid, though, especially the bit about needing more 'newsies.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing in the conversation at WikiNews:User_talk:Moulton that justifies your comment that only half of what I said is valid. Chris Mann (you?) says "If you want an article written, you can write it yourself, or request it" and "You may consider putting a {{editprotected}} request on the talk page of the article, and an admin might add a little "update" box" which is a reiteration of Choice B above. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with me writing the updated article, WAS, is that I'm not an objective, disinterested reporter in this story. I was on the defense team, working with Star's lawyer, and I was slated to be an expert witness on the fundamentals of an electric light bulb circuit. I've also blogged extensively on this case. So while I might plausibly be invited to write an Op-Ed piece for WikiNews, it would not be kosher for me to also write the objective news story. —Moulton (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As you state at WikiNews:User_talk:Moulton "While I could conceivably draft a nominally objective story, it would have to be vetted by an impartial editor" which is my Choice B. I at no time imagined you would be able to create a finished wiki-news article without some kind of review process. So go for it. Write it up and ask the wiki-news community for help. Her current situation is news, and the details are background for that news. What's the latest on her community service? What are commentators saying right now about how unfairly she was treated? What is going on right now at airports around the country with regard to panicked ignorant security personnel? There is a story here to be told. So tell it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The first thing that would have to occur is for an impartial editor to materialize and consent to play that role. Otherwise, my draft article would just languish without review. In the past, when an editor invited me to prepare an article, and then dropped the ball on reviewing it, I just self-published it on my own web site, and let it go at that. —Moulton (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are motivated, try asking for assistance at Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a viable plan. Thanks for the pointer. —Moulton (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Update 1: Done. Moulton (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Update 2: Does anyone understand the reference to Drop the Dead Donkey?
By the way, Wiki-news treats conflict of interest and original research different than the English language Wikipedia does. David Shankbone wrote a wiki-news article about his travel to Israel and interview with a politician there. That would never have been allowed at Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that Shankbone's article drew some stinging commentary at Wikipedia Review, on the grounds that it departed from normative journalistic practices. —Moulton (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WR would criticize water for being deadly dihydrogen monoxide. While Wikipedia has occasional inaccuracies, WR makes a practice of it. WR is useful for its occasional investigative revelation of a fixable problem at wikipedia, but most often they go on and on with claims backed by no evidence based on lack of information (ignorance) and useless accurate claims that wikipedia is far from perfect (as if anything ever is). Shankbone's article was what it was, and to the best of my knowledge did not misrepresent itself. Amateur reporter from volunteer news website goes to Israel, paid for by Israel, and conducts interview(s), takes pictures, publishes on that website. Shankbone had the impression that self serving claims made by the people he talked could be placed in wikipedia articles, but we said no because wiki-news does not have proper processes in place to establish reliability and accuracy (just as wikipedia itself does not) and the obvious self serving nature of the claims. In the end links to the wikinews article were added, which is appropriate. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Uffda! —Moulton (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: Videotape you interviewing some of the key people involved. But first talk to the wiki-news people to be sure you do it in a way they will accept. David use a recording as the evidence/source for his claims; I don't see why you can't also if you try hard enough to work with the volunteers there to find a solution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I don't own any videotape equipment, 2) the key people involved include Major Scott Pare of the Massachusetts State Police, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley, and East Boston Municipal Judge Paul Mahoney. The likelihood of any of them giving me the time of day is nil to nonexistent, as I have already published an unflattering technical analysis of their roles, a copy of which appears here as well. —Moulton (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I had in mind using a borrowed phone with camera or a three way phone call with wikinews recording on the third line or some cheap means like that. I had in mind you talking to the defence team you say you were a part of. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. We could just use Skype. I have a webcam. The other person who I know was slated to testify was Roz Picard. I don't know who else the lawyers had on tap to testify. They might have intended to call Major Scott Pare (to explain what he was doing with the middle finger of his right hand in that remarkable Globe photo). —Moulton (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A very belated response to WAS as to how his comment was only half correct - the suggestion that Moulton create a new article and add an update link to his old one, but the fact that Wikinews has a greater sense of immediacy (as opposed to WP's "There is no deadline") means that an article written now would likely get deleted for lack of timeliness. (And yes, n:User:Chris Mann is me, as pointed out on the user page there.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What I've written is part Op-Ed, part news analysis (or media analysis). —Moulton (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] On Divisiveness

In the ongoing evidentiary phase of RfAr/C68-FM-SV, DanTobias has presented evidence and analysis to support his thesis that "FeloniousMonk has promoted a toxic, divisive mindset." Dan identifies half a dozen recurring themes, including 1) tribalism and favoritism, 2) bullying, intimidation, and coercion, 3) hypocrisy and double standards, 4) character assassination, and 5) faux science.

In the now-dismissed RfAr#Moulton which Ryan Postlethwaite filed a week and a half ago, he observed that "there’s a huge divide in the community about what the best course of action is."

I went back to the original RfC that Filll and ConfuciusOrnis prepared against me back in August/September of last year, and I also went back to the more recent filings of Filll and FeloniousMonk to see if their complaints against me included the charge of Divisiveness.

I was unable to find any instance of the term divisive as being applied to me. Rather the editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design have uniformly used the term Disruptive, instead. The closest I could come to finding any suggestion of Divisiveness was that I was holding out against the existing Consensus of the ID Clique. But in no way did I divide them, as they remained steadfastly united in their view, and vigorously opposed to my countervailing opinion.

And yet I nevertheless do consider myself a Divisive Character in the following sense:

Being a scientist, I am interested in separating scientifically grounded theories (as supported by solid evidence and sound reasoning) from myths, misconceptions, flights of fancy, and delusional beliefs unsupported by scientific evidence or rigorous analytical reasoning.

The divide in the community that Ryan Postlethwaite cited in his abortive RfAr#Moulton is precisely the kind of divide I would have expected to observe when a community is on the liminal threshold of discarding a previously held popular misconception in favor of a better or more accurate scientific theory or model.

Historically, there are some famous scientists who instigated such divides. Among the better known examples are Galileo and Darwin, who planted the scientific seeds to overthrow deeply held but woefully unscientific cultural beliefs.

The science that I undertake is hardly of the gravity (pun maybe intended) of historical figures like Galileo, but the community dynamics manifestly do appear to bear a remarkable parallel to the kind of inquisition to which Galileo was lamentably subjected.

I would prefer to be characterized as divisive rather than disruptive on the grounds that I am intentionally endeavoring to divide unpopular scientific points of view from popular fiction and hoary delusional beliefs (with an unabashed view toward promoting the former and demoting, dismissing, and discarding the latter).

Moulton (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your gloss of the situation is rather egosyntonic, even without the gratuitous application of the Galileo gambit ([5], while we're using this page to drive up blog traffic). Why do you believe that the divide Ryan referenced portends progress? Nearly every disastrous action undertaken by a community is also preceded by a divide. What is the scientifically grounded rationale for your stated belief that this divide resembles that preceding a positive development? MastCell Talk 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Egosyntonic

Egosyntonic is a medical term referring to behaviors, values, feelings, which are in harmony with or acceptable to the needs and goals of the ego, or consistent with one's ideal self-image. It is studied in detail in abnormal psychology. Many personality disorders are considered egosyntonic and are therefore nearly impossible to treat.

It is the opposite of egodystonic. Obsessive compulsive disorder is considered to be an egodystonic disorder, as the thoughts and compulsions experienced or expressed are not consistent with the individual's self-perception.

Do you have a theory you would like to put forward here, to supplement the theories of mind offered so far in this epic by KillerChihuahua, Filll, and FeloniousMonk?
As to whether or not the community will make any progress moving from the present state of disharmony to an imaginable state of harmony on the issues that divide the community, I have no prediction in that regard, as I lack a reliable model of the community dynamics, going forward. There have also been divides that resulted in major wars. The governing factor, near as I can tell, is whether those in disagreement have the temperament of scientists or the temperament of politicians.
If the community is dominated by those of a political temperament (Homo Politicus), then I would predict a disastrous outcome. If the community is dominated by those of a scientific temperament (Homo Scientificus), then I would anticipate a more sanguine outcome. To the extent that Homo Politicus is on the loose, I would also expect a showing by Homo Ludens...

To the tune of "Funeral March of the Marionettess" by Gounod...

    Homo Ludens is on the loose!
    Homo Ludens escaped the noose!
        He's on a spree!
        What can this be?
    Maybe he's cooked his goose.

Moulton (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah. It would appear that our article on egosyntonic requires improvement. No, I don't have anything as elaborate as a theory of mind. I have an observation, echoed by many others, that your modus operandi is directly hindering your ability to implement your stated objectives, and that you either choose not to acknowledge this elephant in the room or choose to spin it in a self-aggrandizing fashion, as in this thread.

I don't mean to lecture someone with your experience in education, but if the Socratic Method is to be effective, the teacher needs to have earned a certain baseline level of respect and deference from the audience. They have to reasonably believe that the payoff, in terms of knowledge or understanding, is worth the investment. If the audience is not convinced that the teacher has anything particularly worthwhile to impart, then repetitive rounds of Socratic questioning simply seem condescending and irritating.

In the real world, I would suppose that audiences are willing to grant you this deference and respect somewhat by default, because of your background, accomplishments, and credentials as an educator. However, those don't translate onto Wikipedia. That's just the nature of the beast at present. In real life, people are willing to learn from me on certain topics because of my background and credentials, but that carries no weight here. If I want to implement what I consider improvements here, I have to convince people by persuasive argument alone, without relying on the authority conferred by past education or accomplishments. I find that to be a particularly challenging and invigorating, if occasionally maddening, aspect of Wikipedia.

Wikipedians tend to be suspicious of people who have grandiose theoretical ideas about how-it-oughta-be but lack practical experience here, because the ethos of this project is profoundly pragmatic. Put another way, Wikipedia's operations are like those of a practical craft or trade (plumbing, aviation, medicine), rather than those of an abstract scientific discipline. People learn, and are taught, through a process of role-modeling, apprenticeship, and experience, not by a lecturer at a blackboard nor by a seminar leader, however skilled in the Socratic method. The only way to teach, and to change practice here, is by modeling the behavior which you'd like to see more of. Does this mean that Homo politicus is a more successful paradigm than Homo scientificus on Wikipedia? Perhaps, though I think this dichotomy is remarkably artificial. The most successful scientists have always had strong strains of Homo politicus in them - Newton, Einstein, and so forth.

Anyhow, I'm not saying anything that WAS 4.250 hasn't already said more eloquently, but hopefully that will give you an idea of where I'm coming from. MastCell Talk 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Those two complementary articles — Egosyntonic and Egodystonic — are a tad confusing. Both mention OCD as an Egodystonic disorder. What disorder (if any) is associated with the Egosyntonic end of the axis?

The method I use, which is called the Scientific Method, normally works pretty well in a scientific culture. However, it is well known that the Scientific Method does not work well in political cultures. I am not aware of any methods that work at all in political cultures.

A Theory of Mind would include one or more of the following aspects of a character's mindset:

Shreklisch Onion Layer Character Model

1. Innermost Fears (Amygdala and Hippocampus)

2. Burbling Emotions (Limbic System)

3. Undisclosed Backstory (Long-Term Memory)

4. Burning Issues (Identify Fiend or Foof)

5. Sacred Beliefs (Neocortex)

6. Derivative Practices (Cerebellum)

7. Heart's Desires (HeartMind)

8. Avowed Intentions (Throat)

9. Foolish Actions & Reactions (Muscles)

10. Dreadful Drama (Shreklisch Life Story)

Regarding the elephant in the room, my fundmental question is one of clinical diagnosis: What is the name of the elephant in the room?

Did you know that Socrates was so roundly disrespected that the Greek Senate bid him drink Hemlock? Fancy that.

According to Maggie Martinez, there is a class of would-be students who wouldn't be students, come hell or high water.

As to where you are coming from, MastCell, I daresay I don't have a shred of reliable data to plug into a Shreklisch Onion Layer Character Model with your name on the label. I don't know your real name, your educational background, your interests, your beliefs, your desires, or intentions.

As Socrates would say, I am an ignorant man when it comes to knowing the first thing about you.

It's hard to put one's faith or trust in an unknown, especially an unknown who would blithely ratify a haphazard and erratic theory of mind of a fellow admin.

Moulton (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to put any faith or trust in me. I'm offering a handful of observations on the difficulties you've encountered here. If they seem to you to be reasonable, sensible observations, then please take them under advisement. If they seem lacking in coherence, clarity, scientific rigor, or whatever other criteria you choose to apply, then you're free to disregard them. That's the case regardless of whether I'm the president of the National Academies of Science or a tenured professor of theology at a private Northeastern university, and regardless of whether you've established a theory of mind in my case.

Incidentally, Socrates was tried not by the Greek Senate (I'm not aware that such a body existed in Athens), but by a group of his fellow Athenians chosen by lot. During his trial, he managed to annoy the jury (intentionally?) to the point that they ordered his execution rather than the more usual punishment of a fine. Let's grant, for a moment, some level of analogy between Socrates' situation and yours. If Socrates had ducked out of Athens after his sentence and gone to Athens Review to complain about the Aristophanes Clique, rather than accepting the logical and perhaps desired consequence of his behavior at his trial, he would be perceived quite differently. What I'm saying is this: if one wants to be Socrates, one has to actually drink the hemlock. MastCell Talk 06:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Aristotle to Socrates. Many of Socrates' friends urged him to leave Athens and avoid the death sentence. But he elected to drink the Hemlock. For the longest time, I wondered why he chose that alternative. Why didn't he do what my Great-Grandfather did and get the hell out of Eastern Europe before the pogroms? But then my Great-Grandfather was a mere tailor. He had no great teachings to leave behind as the legacy of his life's work. And so he made his way to New York in the late 1880s (where my Grandfather was born), and thence to Kansas where there wouldn't be any pogroms for at least a century, until the Kansas School Board got ahold of a crazy idea to exterminate some teachings from the biology textbooks. (Or something like that. I never really followed the story.)
But I digress. After the death of his famous pupil, Alexander the Great, Aristotle fled Athens in 322, "in order that the Athenians might not commit a second crime against philosophy" (alluding to the scandalous trial of Socrates). Aristotle died at his mother's family estate in Chalcis, on the island of Euboea within the same year, presumably of a broken heart.
So, my dear MastCell, what flavor of Hemlock are you serving this season?
Moulton (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hemlock? You're assigning me far too much importance. The most I have is an ostrakon. And your name is on it not because I bear you any ill will - I don't; you seem like a thoughtful and interesting person - but because I continue to think that this particular website is not a good fit for your style, which you show no signs of modifying. MastCell Talk 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Your reference to a potsherd reminds me that some observers have called me an iconoclastic thinker, while others would like to say I'm a crackpot. What's interesting is that both terms — one complimentary, one pejorative — have essentially identical etymologies. —Moulton (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, you ask/say:

  • "For the longest time, I wondered why he chose that alternative." - He was an old man and wanted to go out with a bang. Like some people, when they have had enough of Wikipedia, decide to force us to block/ban them (Wikipedian hemlock) by their being as annoying, disruptive, or vandalizing as they can be. Our article says: "According to Xenophon's story, Socrates purposefully gave a defiant defense to the jury because "he believed he would be better off dead". Xenophon goes on to describe a defense by Socrates that explains the rigors of old age, and how Socrates would be glad to circumvent them by being sentenced to death. It is also understood that Socrates also wished to die because he "actually believed the right time had come for him to die"."
  • "What disorder (if any) is associated with the Egosyntonic end of the axis?" [6]

WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I always associated Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Machiavellian Control Phreaks (i.e. Oligarchical, Rule-Oriented, Control-Oriented, Punishment-Oriented, Authoritarian Leadership). I vastly prefer Collegial, Function-Oriented, Observation-Oriented, Education-Oriented, Authoritative Leadership. —Moulton (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic Staff says:

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

  • Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
  • Exaggerating your achievements or talents
  • Expecting constant praise and admiration
  • Believing that you're special
  • Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
  • Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
  • Taking advantage of others
  • Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
  • Being jealous of others
  • Believing that others are jealous of you
  • Trouble keeping healthy relationships
  • Setting unrealistic goals
  • Being easily hurt and rejected
  • Having a fragile self-esteem
  • Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor Machiavelli, he's certainly gotten a bad rap. The Prince was really observational, not controlling. It did offer advice re "how to" based on observing previously successful rulers, but was not truly a roadmap to dominance. Πολιτεία is more of a how to. And written by Soc's disciple. Cool. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose Machiavelli gets a worse rap than Hammurabi because Machiavelli was considered to be world-class philosopher. Hammurabi can be excused for his misconceptions. He obviously didn't know any better. Machiavelli's views, on the other hand are woefully lacking in insight and emotional intelligence:

The theories expressed in The Prince are often venerated as shrewd methods that an aspiring prince can use to acquire the throne, or an existing prince can use to establish his reign. According to Machiavelli, the greatest moral good is a virtuous and stable state, and actions to protect the country, no matter how cruel, are always justified. It is vital that he do anything necessary to keep his power; however, Machiavelli strongly suggests that above all, the prince must not be hated. He does give a concise answer on whether or not a prince should be feared or loved. He states, "..a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted." He also says "It is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved."

Machiavelli justifies cruelty and terrorism. Yeah, right.
Moulton (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Increased morality in government behavior over the last few thousands of years has largely been a matter of replacing force (death, threats of death, etc) with fraud (religion and other lies). WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What a mechaiah! We've evolved from coercion and torture to mere bamboozlement. —Moulton (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orenda

Incidentally, the part of Machiavelli's argument that I do resonate with is his overarching objective of a "virtuous and stable state." Where I depart dramatically from him is on the most appropriate and efficacious method to achieve that desired state of political nirvana. To my mind (and I daresay many sociologists, criminologists, cultural anthropologists, literary artists and analysts, theologians, and former politicians would agree), the practices which Machiavelli proposes are manifestly iatrogenic — ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. In Native American culture, there existed an alternative concept and practice, largely unheard of in the dominant white culture of Europe and America, of Orenda. Has anyone here ever heard of Orenda (in its original Native American interpretation, rather than as the unexplained corporate name of a Canadian aerospace manufacturer)? —Moulton (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This makes it seem like Animism; and that article says: "in primitive religion souls occupy all physical entities". So far from being "largely unheard of"; it seems that Orenda is simply one language's word for what all primitive humans believe. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you remember the Disney animation, Pocahontas, there is beloved musical number toward the beginning called Colors of the Wind. In that song, Pocahontas is reaming out John Smith over his obliviousness to Orenda; she sings Colors of the Wind to convince him that her people have a different kind of wisdom. Cultural Anthropologist Daniel Quinn has also written extensively about animism. See, for example, Chapter 7 of Providence, wherein he writes, "Everything was burning. Every blade of grass, every single leaf of every single tree was radiant, was blazing—incandescant with a raging power that was unmistakably divine." —Moulton (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If that's Orenda, then the last time I experienced it, I woke up with a splitting headache, a bit of missing time that I still can't account for, and a lot of explaining to do. MastCell Talk 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds a little bit like a Dopamine High, for a person who is normally a low-Dopamine contemplative type of person. Redheads like me are likely to be low-Dopamine, melancholy, contemplative types, except when we have one of our rare epiphanies. Then the Dopamine level shoots up and the world looks like a Peter Max poster for half a day or so. During these rare Dopamine Highs, we are very productive with new ideas and new material. You can mimic this effect with drugs like Ecstasy (MDMA) except that one doesn't have authentic new ideas; instead one just has hallucinations that seem like a great idea at the time. Compare missing time to the emotion of ecstasy. —Moulton (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Poor redheads. You guys can't even get a solid buzz from benzodiazepines (PMID 14709456) or volatile anesthetics (PMID 15277908). To add insult to injury, you're also more sensitive to pain (PMID 15731586). :) MastCell Talk 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for raising to my attention this valuable information about Valium:

Paradoxical reactions

Severe behavioral changes resulting from benzodiazepines have been reported including mania, schizophrenia, anger, impulsivity, and hypomania.[46] Individuals with borderline personality disorder appear to have a greater risk of experiencing severe behavioral or psychiatric disturbances from benzodiazepines. Aggression and violent outbursts can also occur with benzodiazepines, particularly when they are combined with alcohol. Recreational abusers and patients on high-dosage regimes may be at an even greater risk of experiencing paradoxical reactions to benzodiazepines.[47] Paradoxical reactions may occur in any individual on commencement of therapy and initial monitoring should take into account the risk of increase in anxiety or suicidal thoughts.[45]

That insightful analysis goes a long way toward solving this perplexing mystery. The Borderline in that story told me she was on Valium, a drug I was entirely unfamiliar with. It's possible the Valium caused her to become psychotic and violent and to fail to remember her psychotic episodes afterwards. It also explains why an application of the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation was such a contra-indicated treatment, as that would obviously exacerbate her level of pathological anxiety.
Alas, the solution to that mystery comes twenty years too late. But it may not be too late to apply those insights to other troubled relationships which mimic the dynamics of that unforgettably prototypical one.
Moulton (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics at DHMO's RfA

At WR you said: "Guy (or anyone else, for that matter), do you have an analysis of what went haywire in DHMO's RfA process?" With all this talk about the case, I decided to read it yesterday. The 44th (correction 74th) "No" !vote claimed a breach of ethics that most found believable and telling. He apparently can not be trusted not to divulge confidential information for purposes of revenge. This seems to confirm suspicions by others that he lacks judgement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guy at WR (not the same person as JzG at WP) said, "Nothing went haywire. An immensely popular editor was doing very well, when a determined group of people decided to oppose. Things got increasingly acrimonious until the poor editor couldn't stand the strain."
Alison Cassidy concurred with that view.
The 44th opposing vote (cast by DGG) says, "Oppose although I like DHMO, I agree with the views expressed that he does not yet show the consistent good judgment that is necessary. I can only hope he would do well as an admin, but I do not yet have the necessary degree of confidence in it."
If I take your point, a person's position along the Anxiety-Confidence Axis is correlated with the degree to which they adhere to sound ethical standards.
Moulton (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(correction 74th). Sorry. "Switching to strongest possible oppose: during this RFA, Giggy sent me a piece of private correspondence unsolicited, with the intent of compromising another user's personal privacy. I spoke with him one-on-one about this, and the conclusion that I divined from the conversation was that he thought that the offense was in that the third person may have been offended, and not that spreading around private correspondence is a terrible idea. I am not comfortable with Giggy having deleted material and access to private communities such as unblock-en-l or #-admins available to them anymore. [...] I don't think the release of info was accidental either, and to be honest, I can't even rule out malice. The nitty-gritty of it was that Giggy came up to me out of the clear blue and asked "would you like personal information about [person X whom he was pissed off with at the moment]?" I replied with surprise, at which point he emailed me X's real name, as well as a long thread of correspondence that he had with them. I spoke with him about it a couple days after the fact and am convinced that it was just a stupid action which he didn't think through, but the impression I got was that he doesn't understand why it was wrong either."WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Without compromising the undisputed facts here, one word stands out in the above: intent. How did you conclude that Giggy had an intent to compromise privacy as contrasted with some other intent? Could it not be the case that he unthinkingly compromised privacy whilst seeking to achieve some other objective in his correspondence with you? —Moulton (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not conclude that he had an intent to compromise privacy. He did violate privacy. That's enough for people to decide not to support his "bid for the mop". WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with you observing that he did compromise privacy. What I have a problem with is inferring malicious intent to compromise privacy. If you wish to hypothesize malicious intent, and publish that hypothesis in a prejudicial manner, then I believe you have an ethical duty to support your published hypothesis with evidence and reasoning (and submit that evidence and reasoning to cross examination and peer review). The applicable precept here is, "Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or obliviousness." I, for one, would not want "the mop" to be in the hands of those who habitually hypothesize malicious intent where an hypothesis of mere ignorance, obliviousness, or sloppy mopping would more plausibly explain the soapy story line. —Moulton (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---)Moulton, you appear to be confused. First: I never used the word "malicious". The person who wrote the 74th comment, which I quote above, did. He said "I don't think the release of info was accidental either, and to be honest, I can't even rule out malice." This is his opinion based on his personal experiences with this person. I have no hypothesis of motive. Second: I don't even care about motive, in a case like this. Only the end results. Whether one does something wrong due to careful conscious calculation or not, it is still one's brain making the decision and it does not matter much whether the part making the choice is part of the conscious or part of the unconscious - the end results are the same. I see no reason to tell military secrets, for example, to either traitors or fools - someone who can not be trusted to handle sensitive information sensitively should not have access to sensitive information regardless of the peculiarities of their individual failings. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, WAS. I lost the chain of attribution there. I now see it was User:East718 in that cited comment, who published an inference of malicious intent. Some respondents did call for restraint while Giggy was afforded a fair chance to refute East718's unsettling theory of mind. Others unskeptically accepted East's allegations and adjusted their vote accordingly. —Moulton (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility As a Tool Against Academic Excellence

At WR you said: "Can someone unpack his "issue" with civility/incivility?" My understanding is that some claim that our rules on civility are being used as a tool against academic excellence. See User:Filll and User:Filll/CIVIL examined. Others claim this is a misstatement and that in fact one can block/ban/argue and still be civil. There is some truth to both claims, which is why the debate has no clear resolution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ben Franklin said, "Gentlemen, we can disagree without being disagreeable."
On 31 May, Filll added a headline under the masthead of his main user page that he had become "disgusted" with Wikipedia. Curiously enough, that's the same term I used back on August 28th of last year, when I blogged my first memoir of an unanticipated experience here. The remaining comments on his user page make it sound like Filll is taking a hiatus from some or all of Wikipedia's crazy-making politics.
As to civility, I tend to connect that term to the notion of granting others (especially one's adversaries) their Civil Rights (as that concept has come to be clarified in modern times). I suspect Filll may have something less comprehensive in mind, perhaps along the lines of avoiding excessive levels of Narcissistic Wounding. But it's also clear that he's concerned about bullying, threats of violence, and coercion or manipulation. I had sought to bring some of those issues before the slate of candidates to the WMF Board of Elections, but I was barred from doing so because (thanks in part to Filll and his allies on the WikiClique on Intelligent Design) I am not currently eligible to vote (or even ask questions) in the WMF Board Elections. Eventually another participant (from WikiBooks) posed the question I had in mind.
I consider disenfranchisement to be a Civil Rights issue, whether it's voting on candidates for the WMF Board, or registering opposition to a so-called consensus among a clique of rogue editors who jealously guard their exclusive right to determine what goes into the BLP of an academic with whom they are entirely unfamiliar.
Meanwhile, Filll has started a personal blog, The Fillling Station, which I have featured at Wikipedia Review. For reasons unbeknownst to me, Filll has not yet seen fit to release from moderation my comments on his blog.
Moulton (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have talked on Wikipedia to both you and Filll and in my opinion you are both very smart, very scientific, very ethical, and so damn convinced of your own position that you don't even hear others' positions. Both of you two wonderful fellows. It is very frustrating for a would-be middleman (a "smoother" according to a logic expert). WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Upthread, WAS, you can verify that early on in my conflict with Filll and his allied editors, I sought mediation and conflict resolution through every office I could discover or arouse, with frankly disappointing and dispiriting results. But if you are willing to step into the role as Mediator or Ombudsman or Chair of a Truth and Reconciliation Process, I would welcome your good offices. —Moulton (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the minimum specific objectively-verifiable action that you wish Filll to take? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To enter into a good faith dialogue, moderated by a mutually agreeable Chairperson, with the express goal of crafting a Truth and Reconciliation Process. The desired outcome would be to build a stable, functional, and civil communication bridge across the chasm which currently divides us. —Moulton (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---)What specific observables would we observe were this to happen? In other words, what objective criteria would allow us to assess whether or not this goal is reached? WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum, all parties to the dialogue could articulate the position of any other party in a way that is sufficiently objective that no participant objects to the proposed characterization of the other guy (or characterization of the events). The best outcome would be that the parties could reprise the central story of their drama (with a mutually satisfactory ending) that fairly retold the story of their conflict (preferably in the form of a delightfully entertaining, insightful, and therapeutic musical comedy). —Moulton (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"therapeutic musical comedy" You had me going there, Moulton. I had thought you were serious. Now I realize that you are just pulling my leg. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite serious, WAS. To my mind, that would be the best conceivable ultimate outcome of a near-term Truth and Reconciliation Process. In the spirit of Mel Brooks, that's the Final Absolution that I'd like to see. —Moulton (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's only serious if you can't tell the difference between the theoretical and the practical. If I ask where shall we go on vacation and the answer is "the moon"; then I cease to consider that the person I am talking to is engaged in a serious conversation about where to go on vacation and instead is indulging in games, flights of fancy, or theoretical musings. You are not being serious about finding a practical solution to a real problem. You are playing with words and indulging in fantasy. A "therapeutic musical comedy" has exactly zero chance of occurring as an outcome of a good faith dialogue between you and Filll. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see this model for the difference between beliefs and practices. I believe that a dialogue (perhaps mediated by a moderator) is an excellent method for resolving differences between the parties to an unresolved conflict. Whether or not we have a good faith Truth and Reconciliation Process, WAS, I expect that the operatic composer and musicologist who contacted me last month about crafting an opera (not necessarily a comic opera, but some kind of operatic treatment) will probably produce something of a musical nature out of this story. —Moulton (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are playing with words and are infatuated with your own memes (repeated ad nauseum). People have and will go to the moon, but not as a result of my vacation planning. I have no doubt that artistic productions, possibly including comedies, musicals, and dramas will be created that reflect on the absurdities of wiki-drama. But their possible therapeutic value is entirely conjectural. And they will not be "occurring as an outcome of a good faith dialogue between you and Filll". I repeat: you are playing with words.WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The therapeutic value of the Program of Media Arts and Sciences is fairly well established in human culture, especially the therapeutic value of StoryCraft. To the extent that Filll and others maintain an adversarial stance, and keep the Vexagonistic Lunatic Scape-Goat Psycho-Drama going, there will just be that much more material for some gifted artist to set to music. —Moulton (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(<---)True enough. So get out the popcorn. My only point was that your plea for a "good faith dialogue between you and Filll" appears disingenuous given your actual words and choices; so therefore I won't be wasting my time trying mediate such a thing. Have I been useful to you in your efforts to keep this Vexagonistic Lunatic Scape-Goat Psycho-Drama going? I would like to think I did something useful for the arts in this matter. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly disingenuous. Like my alter ego, Barsoom Tork, I've tried seventeen ways from Tuesday to resolve the long-festering conflict with Filll and the other ID Editors. Nor have I abandoned that pathway. But it's also a given that absent a resolution, there are other avenues for redress of grievance, including avenues of poetic justice. I don't happen to have any practical talent at StoryCraft (let alone Musical StoryCraft), but I imagine others do. I don't happen to have any talent at Wiki-Lawyering either, but I imagine others do. My talent is in System Modeling, which may or may not be a useful talent here. So absent a Truth and Reconciliation Process, I'll continue to explore other possibilities, including those that tap into the Program of Media Arts and Sciences. —Moulton (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you willing to ask to be unblocked for the purpose of a "good faith dialogue between you and Filll"? If not, I'm not going to waste my time. You say you "tried seventeen ways from Tuesday". Try this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an AN/Moulton underway where the community is reviewing whether or not the original RfC and subsequent block were proper. I am still waiting for the community to decide that issue. —Moulton (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The last edit there is "31 May 2008 WAS 4.250 I see no benefit in concluding this without a clear statement that Moulton does or does not wish to be unblocked ..." The ball in your court. We are waiting on you. But you prefer to keep this Vexagonistic Lunatic Scape-Goat Psycho-Drama going, rather than make a clear simple statement. Your role in all this is as a key player, not a bystander. Funny how the key characters in a drama never quite get how their behavior is causative to the consequences. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I made my wishes very clear, WAS. I wish for the members of the English Wikipedia to adopt the best ethical practices upon which they are able to reach a community-wide consensus. At this point, not only is there no community-wide consensus at AN/Moulton, there appears to be a substantial and seemingly intractable divide within the community, essentially pitting no more than a dozen ID Editors (and a handful of their loyal allies) against a number of other members of the English Wikipedia community.

My desire to participate in the collaborative work of crafting mainspace articles, going forward, is contingent on the outcome of that (currently stalled) effort to reach a community consensus on "the way things are done here" going forward.

With regard to the dwindling hopes of the lamentable stalemate at AN/Moulton, WAS, I direct your attention to this comparable episode in the Hoary History of teh Intarwebs that took place in the weeks leading up to 9/11...

Excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Hootne

InfoArchiTexture.VC.7.2231: A Purloined Document (barsoom)
Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:13:57 CDT (32 lines)

By means of stealth and hackery, I have succeeded in discovering a hitherto unpublished document at the Hootne Reaper web site...

Excerpts From The Protocols of The Elders of Hootne
  • "Our right lies in coercion. The word 'right' is a given and is proved by axiomatic assumption. The word means no more than: Give me what I require in order that thereby I may have a proof that you are subservient to me." -- Protocol 1. Article 12.
  • "The Hosts, whom we shall choose from among the Cafe at large, with strict regard to their capacities for loyal and servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, rhetoric, or logic and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of cunning and genius who will be their superiors, specially bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole Cafe and eventually all other Web forums." -- Protocol 2. Article 2.
  • "In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the academics lose their heads in the labyrinth of Meta and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret." -- Protocol 5. Article 10.
  • "The Fresh Press, which with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands. The single troublesome exception of a rogue journalist named "Moulton" is being dealt with." -- Protocol 7. Article 5.

Moulton (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has adopted best practices on this matter (even if not on other matters). We have a community-wide consensus not to undo blocks or bans on people that refuse to request for one. It is unethical to force someone to be unbanned or unblocked if that's not what they wish. I am surprised at your unethical position that we should do so. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Last night, when I was creating a new login for myself on MetaWiki, the registration page invited me to avail myself of the new Global Account Management feature. That sounded sensible, especially if I was going to register also on WikiBooks and/or Wikiversity.
However, I ran into a small technical glitch...

Login unification status

From Meta

Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.

Home wiki

The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.

    * en.wikipedia.org (home wiki)

So I would request to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia for the express purpose of availing myself of the Unified Account Management feature so that I may ply my craft, under a unified WikiMedia Login ID, on more collegial and congenial projects (other than the English Wikipedia) sponsored by the WikiMedia Foundation.
Note, also, that I had previously asked you to remove the block which prevents me from creating or editing subpages in my user space here on the English Wikipedia.
Also, please see this item, which raises the issue of which party has the ethical responsibility to undo an unethical act, once it's raised to their attention.
Moulton (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have copied your request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, WAS. I'll take a few minutes to read up at those noticeboards and await the outcome. —Moulton (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Addendum. WAS, when reviving the discussion at AN/Moulton, it would be helpful if you also restored the stub paragraph at WP:AN that refers to the subpage. As you know, MiszaBot II automatically archives such stub paragraphs after 48 hours, even if the referenced subpage is still active.
Here is how that stub paragraph looked on May 31, when MiszaBot II archived it:

Moulton (un)ban

Discussion on a potential unban of moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. Ryan Postlethwaite

time stamps. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want the community at large to weigh in, it would be helpful if a stub parapraph along those lines were reinserted into WP:AN.
Moulton (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What would you think if I asked you to undo some unethical action of someone at WR? Wikipedia is no more a single entity than WR. Unblocking you will require people who did you no wrong to act. They have no ethical responsibility to unblock you if you don't even bother to ask them. And not even don't bother to ask them, but blame them for the acts of others. We are all volunteers here and no one is responsible or liable for any other person's actions. You really need to unlearn the lies you have learned at WR. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have long sought (with only modest success) to elevate the level of ethics at Wikipedia Review. If you have a list of specific examples where the participants or administrators at Wikipedia Review have fallen short of best ethical practices, I am more than willing to use whatever good offices I have to seek a fair and just remedy, satisfactory to all affected parties.
Upthread, you likened my treatment here last August and September to being "mugged in Central Park." Am I to understand that it is your belief and position that the remaining upright citizens of the community have no obligation to come to the aid and comfort of those who are mugged in the park?
Moulton (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A man in a house in an unexpected flood climbed to his roof. The water rose as he prayed to his God for help. A rowboat came by as the water reached the bottom of the roof but he waved it off saying he was expecting a miracle from God. A helicopter came by as the water rose to his ankles, but he waved it off yelling God was sure to save him. After he drowned and went to heaven, he asked God why he did not answer his prayers. God said, "Who do you think sent the rowboat and helicopter?" WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of divinely inspired helicopters, are you familiar with the story about The Amusing Helicopter from Hell? —Moulton (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the first I've heard of The Amusing Helicopter from Hell. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a particularly widely read author. —Moulton (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)



Technical note: I went through this last week with banned editor, User:Hornetman16. We managed to resolve it okay and unify the guy's accounts with a couple of minor glitches, so it's very do-able. Admins, Moulton or anyone else can email me for details - Alison ❤ 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I already unblocked the account. Please see the bottom of the page. Thatcher 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Thatcher. I'm running behind, as I came into MIT mid-morning to attend our weekly group meeting, which just ended. I have some catching up to do here. —Moulton (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Name-dropper. Thatcher 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it considered bad form to mention one's affiliations? —Moulton (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Only when they're better than mine :) Thatcher 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Duh! So you did ... :) - Alison ❤ 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of the Stages of Development of Moral and Ethical Reasoning

People with a balance of both intelligence and wisdom consistently operate at the uppermost rungs of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Development...

Lawrence Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Reasoning
Plus Carol Gilligan's Seventh Stage of Ethical Care

Stage 1: Punishment-Avoidance and Obedience — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what is best for themselves, without regard for the needs or feeling of others. They obey rules only if established by more powerful individuals; they disobey when they can do so without getting caught.

Stage 2: Exchange of Favors — Individuals begin to recognize that others also have needs. They may attempt to satisfy the needs of others if their own needs are also met in the process. They continue to define right and wrong primarily in terms of consequences to themselves.

Stage 3: Good Boy/Good Girl — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what actions will please others, especially authority figures. They are concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships through sharing, trust, and loyalty. They now consider someone's intentions in determining innocence or guilt.

Stage 4: Law and Order — Individuals look to society as a whole for guidelines concerning what is right or wrong. They perceive rules to be inflexible and believe that it is their "duty" to obey them.

Stage 5: Social Contract — Individuals recognize that rules represent an agreement among many people about appropriate behavior. They recognize that rules are flexible and can be changed if they no longer meet society's needs.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle — Individuals adhere to a small number of abstract, universal principles that transcend specific, concrete rules. They answer to an inner conscience and may break rules that violate their own ethical principles.

Stage 7: Ethics of Care — An obligation of care rests on the understanding of relationships as a response to another in terms of their special needs. Focuses on the moral value of being empathetic toward those dearly beloved persons with whom we have special and valuable relationships, and the moral importance of responding to such persons as unique individuals with characteristics that require custom-crafted responses to them that we do not normally extend to others.

An automaton can trivially operate at Stage 4, given a comprehensive list of the rules to be obeyed or applied. However, it is well known that such a system, populated by none but rigorously rule-driven robots, nonetheless typically yields a mathematically chaotic outcome that few would characterize as the behavior of an intelligent system.

Moulton (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ID RfC Volunteers

Hi Moulton. I recently posted at the "Intelligent design editors" RfAr asking for volunteers to help craft an RfC. In case you're interested in contributing, I'll keep an eye on this thread for any items you might post. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Pretty much anything I'd contribute would already be found upthread on this page or in my first archive page. I went looking for your E-Mail address, but you don't seem to have one. It would be helpful if I had a way to communicate with you short of posting notes here on my talk page. —Moulton (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've taken an interest in reading through the many dead trees capacitors killed by your case, so I'm becoming pretty familiar with things. Maybe you could point me back to a short list of the things most directly relevant to an RfC, either now or as the composition of an RfC (hopefully) proceeds. Gnixon (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me walk through the items listed above in the section on Relevant Discussions and comment on them in the context of their possible usefulness in an RfC.

[edit] Annotated Relevant Discussions

This was my first encounter with any of the ID Editors (primarily User:Hrafn and User:Filll). Therein, Filll abruptly announces his intention to abort the dialogue and file an RfC against me (see Previous Attempts At Dispute Resolution elsewhere on this page).

This is the archive of my talk page from that epoch. Note especially the trolling by User:Baegis, who registered expressly to take part in the RfC. Baegis also posted the request to blank and page-protect my talk page, which User:MastCell acceded to without further ado.

This is the RfC which User:Filll and User:ConfuciusOrnis initially prepared in Filll's userspace and filed a few days later.

This is the talk page for the above RfC. Some of the material that I filed in my Response Section of the RfC was moved to the talk page. I didn't understand the rules which allowed the adversarial editors to add or remove content from my Response section. Also note that at the bottom of this talk page, User:FeloniousMonk has reprised content previous removed from the User:Moulton page as a result of an MfD listed below.

This is the notice that User:KillerChihuahua posted when she decided to end the RfC without seeking consensus at the Community Sanction Board.

This is "Durova's Gambit" to see if there would be any backlash if she took the initiative to unblock me.

This is the archive from my talk page when User:Mercury and User:AGK helped me file an ArbCom Review of Due Process in the original RfC and subsequent Indef-Block by User:KillerChihuahua.

This is the RfAr as of the date when User:FloNight prematurely deleted it, before User:KillerChihuahua had yet responded to it, and before the 11 days were up.

This is a tangentially related incident, when User:Krimpet undertook to correct a portion of the BLP on Rosalind Picard and ran into flak from the ID Editors.

This is the MfD that arose in the wake of User:FeloniousMonk recreating the User:Moulton page and populating it with mostly specious allegations, unsupported by evidence or coherent analysis.

This is User:Random832's analysis of User:FeloniousMonk's allegations which FM had posted on the User:Moulton page, revealing them to be largely unsupported by evidence or coherent analysis

This is the tangential commentary on Undertow's talk page when he took the initiative to oppose FeloniousMonk.

This is the tangential incident report associated with the ensuing battle between The Undertow and FeloniousMonk.

This is the well-known RfAr/C68-FM-SV Evidence Page, which includes evidence regarding FM's machinations with respect to me.

This is the WP:AN/Moulton that Giggy started, in which Lar, Sam Korn and others examined the circumstance of RfC/Moulton and the subsequent Indef-Block and found them to be a sham.

This is User:Filll's biographical sketch and analysis of me, which, as I have suggested elsewhere on this page, needs to be reviewed for compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NOR, etc.

This is User:Ryan Postlethwaite's RfAr/Moulton which he filed in the wake of the divide emerging in AN/Moulton.

This is User:FeloniousMonk's biographical sketch of me, containing allegations and evidence which he references or submits in the indicated RfAr's.

This is the well-known RfAr on the ID Editors.

This is the associated talk page for the above RfAr.

This is an RfC filed on 10 June by User:Odd nature and endorsed by User:Filll, alleging that disputatious editors are engaged in disputatious conduct, much to the annoyance and chagrin of the aggrieved editors whose conduct is being publicly examined.

This is the present talk page, which includes a brief Background section, a comprehensive summary of previous attempts at dispute resolution, a notable excerpt from the RfC/Moulton talk page, a critique of User:Filll's biographical sketch of me, my response to Filll's critique of my Objectives, a sendup of a paragraph from A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a critique of the lack of peer review of articles by the ID Editors, and other variegated commentary.

See also Ridiculous Fascination and other articles at the Media Ethics blog and A Crockwork Orange at Moulton Lava.

Moulton (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the list above, and thanks for the helpful annotations. I noticed you gave some links in a more narrative form somewhere on WR. Would you mind if I dug that up and reposted it in an RfC? I would only get around to doing that if the RfC drafts seem to be developing constructively. Gnixon (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the specific blog posts (one of which was reprinted as an Op-Ed in the Hard News Cafe, and two of which were reprinted as Op-Eds at Wikipedia Review)...

You may cite, excerpt, reprint, or paraphrase from any of the above.

Moulton (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Gnixon (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is yet another narrative account, buried within a discussion thread at Wikipedia Review, that might be of some interest, too:

Moulton (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also this further list of pointers to relevant items:

Moulton (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On the question of the quality of the main article on Intelligent Design, please see this post on WR which discloses my unacknowledged suggestions to Dave Souza for improving it:

Moulton (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

I have Horizontal gene transfer on my watchlist. Saw a strange assertion about Mae-Wan Ho used POV push, Reverted. Notified someone more expert than myself: User talk:TimVickers. Discovered Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mae-Wan Ho and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae-Wan Ho. Decided to improve article: [7]. You'll note a coat-rack piece of trivia I deleted. I hope this doesn't turn into a fight. I hate fights. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

“ Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism transfers genetic material to another cell that is not its offspring. ”
Isn't fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell an instance of horizontal gene transfer?
In other words, isn't HGT/LGT a metaphor for a seminal idea?
So, let's now turn to the editorial dispute du jour...
zOMG.
Sustained applause.
Way to go, Counselor.
I'm kvelling.
Moulton (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell is an instance of vertical gene transfer, like you find on a family tree or the "tree of life"; you know, parents having kids, or a life form reproducing its own kind without sex. Horizontal gene transfer typically transfers one or more genes between species; messing with the formerly oh-so-neat tree of life and putting cobwebs on it so it becomes net-like. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the definition which I cited above (from the English Wikipedia article) is overly broad or ill-written. I am not a cell biologist, but it is my understanding that the male's sperm cell and the female's ovum are not vertically related in most cases. (The rare cases where they are Oedipally related are quite celebrated, albeit in a disapproving manner.)
As I read the local article on the English Wikipedia, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g. its parent or a species from which it evolved.
—Moulton (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to read about it I suggest http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer. Their articles on it are far better than ours. I put links to their articles in our article's further reading/external links section. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's take a look at the definition there...
“ Horizontal gene transfer occurs when an organism transfers its genetic material to a being other than one of its own offspring. ”
Aha! Now we have Poppa transferring genetic material to a new being (not just a genetically unrelated cell in Momma's somatic custody), and that new being is an offspring. That rewording changes the transfer from one of horizontal recreation to one of vertical recreation.
That clears that up nicely.
Moulton (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

I have temporarily unblocked your account to allow you to create a merged single user login. Please let me know when this is completed. Thatcher 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Thatcher. If you have no objections, I would also like to take this opportunity to do some housekeeping in my user space. In particular, I'd like to begin archiving some of the content here on my current talk page, as this page is beginning to resemble The Long Long Trailer. —Moulton (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as you only edit within your own user space I don't see any harm in that. Thatcher 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Alison ❤ 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. If and when the time comes for me to respond directly to any of the ongoing or upcoming RfAr's or RfC's in which I am named as a vile miscreant, I'll consult with each of you (and others such as Lar, Sam Korn, and Kim Bruning) regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. —Moulton (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: I successfully converted to Single Unified Login. —Moulton (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you done with your user space? Thatcher 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, its only been a few hours. Just let me know when you are done. Thatcher 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)