User talk:Moulton

From Encyc
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Song Parodies[edit]

I saw this mentioned on Twitter. --JWSchmidt 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ayup. I've copied over about 90 song parodies from Wikipedia Review. There's about a dozen more scattered hither and yon that were never posted on W-R. --Moulton 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to be an administrator?[edit]

Are you interested in becoming an admin here? Here are my expectations. Emperor 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would only consider that if the site were operated under the terms of a Social Contract, not as a hierarchy of powers. Moulton 08:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I can respect that. If you change your mind, just let me know. Emperor 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. If you ever decide to explore the Social Contract Model, I'd be glad to explain the concept with the would-be signatories. Moulton 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Auggie, given that much of the routine activity here is regulating rogue registrations, you might want to take a fresh look at the option upgrading your site's self-regulation model to a Social Contract Model. It would save everyone a lot of aggravation. Moulton (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2019 (CDT)
So you're proposing that prospective new users be required to read and agree to a contract? I'm not sure I like that. Open registration has gotten us some good new members too. Auggie (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2019 (CDT)
Just think about it. We did that back in the 90s and it solved our problem of rogue registrations. Moulton (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2019 (CDT)

"Policies" vs. "Social Contract"?[edit]

If policies are created via "consensus", then how would the resulting policies be different than a social contract? Thank you.

The policies could comprise a Social Contract, as long as they are mutually agreeable to all participants.
The main feature is that the policies and practices that the community agrees to must fulfill specific needs, such as a peaceable conflict resolution process.
For more information, see this Google Knol article on the subject.
Moulton 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Take them to your site if you want, they're 100% free! Guest 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are released into the public domain. Feel free to adapt them, perform them, or post your performance on YouTube. Moulton 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am Emperor[edit]

Hi Moulton. I think I announced it sometime back, but in case you're in any doubt, I am the user also known as Emperor. The reason I changed my name was to appear less imperious, and more warm and fuzzy.

Regarding Mr. B., I'd like to keep his name off this site. Not because of any overarching moral principles, but because he's been a loyal friend of Encyc and it's the nice thing to do. It costs us nothing, and earns us a valuable ally. Auggie 02:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Harrumph. Moulton 02:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


If you're interested, I can fire up the forum again. Auggie 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit and see what transpires over the weekend. Moulton 18:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't necessarily mean as a fork. I just thought it might be easier to talk things out if the mods weren't always moving posts and you didn't have the 2-hour flood control restriction. Auggie 22:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you think the discussants would come, if the discussion architecture did not enable them to get their daily dose of dopamine lulz? Moulton 00:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Somey might drop by. I don't know about the four horsemen. Auggie 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand what drove Somey to cave in to the Four Obnoxious Moderators of the Apocalypse. Surely he must realize that they are on the wrong side of history. Moulton 02:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
He likes their company, obviously. He finds them amusing. Auggie 03:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who will be the next to go. There seems to be a lot of ejectivitis going around in the Wikipedia Criticism Community these daze. Moulton 13:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than composing messages for something like the COPD mailing list. One would be better off sitting in the basement, building toothpick sculptures. (not that there's anything wrong with sculptors or outsider art) Auggie 14:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that the whole point of critical feedback is to guide and encourage people to conscientiously improve the quality of their work. My observation is that a wretched excess of unconstructive criticism is counter-productive, because it tends to drive those being criticized into an unethical manipulation of the rules of the game, so as to shield themselves from a flood of withering criticism. Moulton 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that what Somey would call a "crap flood"? Auggie 01:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose you can ask him if he would apply the same term of art to the flood of withering criticism that the "regulars" on W-R routinely level on a daily basis against others in the Wikisphere. Moulton 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not Barbour[edit]

Not Barbour here. I was wikipedia's 4th most wanted "vandal", arguably after Morrow, Grawp and Kohs. I live in the Old Continent outside of the Anglosphere. Anyway, Barbour has some nice videos: this is him at the Big City Music Booth. And LOL at what he says: "am i a XXXXXXX, maybe so but i make a fine drum machine" Gridlock 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you are a fan of Metasonix, but not Eric. So if you are a vacuum tube maven, why are you Gridlock? Shouldn't you be Gridleak? Moulton 23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about vacuum tubes. That's why people can use the power of crowdsourcing and make those pages better! Greedleak 09:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That explains why you didn't seem to get the joke about Grid Leak. The basic Vacuum Tube Triode has three active elements (besides the glowing filament). The heat of the filament boils electrons off the negatively charged Cathode where they drift to the positively charged Anode. In between the Cathode and the Anode, there is a control element called the Grid. The time-varying voltage on the Grid corresponds to the Audio Signal to be amplified. But there is another way to use a Triode to demodulate an Amplitude Modulated (AM) Radio Frequency (RF) signal. If you put the RF signal on the Grid, you will demodulate the RF signal to detect an amplified Audio Frequency (AF) program. This application of a Triode is called a Grid Leak Detector. So a Vacuum Tube Maven might respond to the stage direction, "Fire when ready, Grid Leak." Moulton 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd have put you ahead of Kohser, but what do I know ... XD - Alison 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Kohs made more useful vandalism... Greedleak 09:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


The prerequisite having to read and "agree" to the policies or rules or "social contract" or whatever they are called at NetKnowledge has been my barrier to engagement there. Perhaps have humans read and explicitly agree to them if they start causing problems or else face banning. Oh well. Wikademia 10:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Perhaps a community where participants subscribe to a Community Agreement setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement is not your cup of tea. So be it. Moulton 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ya; not right now, not like that. Wikademia 20:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. Moulton 23:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comedy of Terrors[edit]

It's a rare volunteer organization that can keep out the tin badge types for long. I feel your pain. Auggie 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What's fascinating to me is how sites like Wikipedia are magnets that attract the Cluster B Control Phreaks. Thirty years ago, I had never heard of DSM III or Personality Disorders. Now online projects like Wikipedia are overrun with them.
Consider this definition of Good and Evil:

Good = Love + Compassion + Mindfulness + Mercy + Healing

Evil = Fear + Antipathy + Ignorance + Power + Harmfulness

If you want to diagnose Evil, diagnose the elements of Evil.
If you want to craft Good, discover and manifest the elements of Good.
Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil."
For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, obtaining a tin badge and a toy banhammer lures impressionable young people into a life of Evil. They become drunk on power and go over to the dark side. It's the Barney Fife Syndrome.
Moulton 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand it. These people have very little control over their own lives, and so they retreat to a place where they can feel they have some power. What they don't realize, and what Wikipedia's critics have utterly failed to publicize, is the actual evil that is going on. It's far worse than a nice guy getting wrongfully banned once in a while. We're talking about an organization that steals intellectual property and destroys peoples' livelihoods, that promotes ignorance and stupidity, that distributes hardcore pornography to children, and that serves as a vehicle for hate-filled propaganda.
You're right though, it all starts with how they treat individuals. That's where their lack of empathy begins, because if they can't see the pain they cause in one user then how can they possibly understand what they are doing to the faceless multitudes?
I'm not sure why I'm soapboxing other than I was feeling retrospective about Encyc today. The jokers over at WR are constantly telling me it's a failure, but I don't think so.
The search engines like us, and the WWII page shows up on the first or second page of Yahoo search results for "world war ii" quite frequently. Searches for Jimmy Wales on Google frequently lead to "Jimmy Wales salary" and we get 2-3 visitors a day looking for that information.
Maybe it is possible for the good guys to win. I don't claim to be perfect. In fact, I am in touch with many of those traits you would call "evil", but I think they have their place in self-interest and on an organizational level keeping the place efficient and in touch with users' needs. It's good to have power and to be able to produce harm when needed. But also not to be a complete idiot about it. A fine line. Interesting as we go to war yet again. Auggie 03:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • We're talking about an organization that steals intellectual property and destroys peoples' livelihoods, that promotes ignorance and stupidity, that distributes hardcore pornography to children, and that serves as a vehicle for hate-filled propaganda.
That pretty much covers the bases of the perfidious nature of WMF projects and the nefariousness of the Tin Badge Banhammer Operators.
  • Maybe it is possible for the good guys to win.
In the epic battle between Agape and the Lust for Power, Agape spends most of the story running a distant second until we finally get to Ragnarok and the Riot of the Mockeries.
Moulton 11:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I always imagined that in the end it would go out in a whimper, but some sort of cataclysmic event would be cool too. I just hope that when it happens we still have people around who remember how to do research and to write books. Auggie 11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • We will write the story of the epic drama. Or I should say, rewrite it. It's the same story time and again. Gilgamesh, the Norse Mythology, The Ring of the Niebelung, Lord of the Rings, Lord of the Flies, Star Wars, Harry Potter. I plan to do it as a comic opera, "The Final Absolution." Moulton 12:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I eventually did develop a comic opera entitled The Final Absolution but it ended up springing more from Facebook shenanigans rather than from similar earlier shenanigans on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. Moulton (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2019 (CDT)

What Mad Pursuit[edit]

John Schmidt has crafted a fanciful book cover, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Wikimedia.

Moulton (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2019 (CDT)

The Political History of Banning[edit]

This might be a good opportunity to point out the earliest known reference to a "ban" in the written law. Oddly enough, the very first law ever set in stone makes reference to a ban. 3770 years ago, Hammurabi of Babylonia (Mesopotamia) set 282 laws into stone. Here are the first three of them:

  1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

  2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

  3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

The second of Hammurabi's laws is a rather odd one. Perhaps it's the origin of the expression, "Go jump in the lake."

Isn't it a tad ironic that here in cyberspace in the 21st Century, the Bureaucrats and Custodians of Wikiversity, acting under the direction of the Wikimedia Foundation, are reprising a practice first defined in law by none other than Hammurabi himself? And according to Hammurabi's version, the Bureaucrats and Custodians have to establish and prove their cause of action to make the ban stick.

So what is the cause of action, and where is the Due Process through which the purported cause of action is proven to a skeptical public?

Barry Kort 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rulez[edit]

Rule #1: No Narcissistic Wounding.

Rule #2: No Narcissistic Wounding.

Rule #3: No Narcissistic Wounding.

Violators will be summarily stigmatized, reverted, humiliated, scapegoated, blocked, banned, baleeted, blacklisted and made to stand in the corner with a dunce cap and a scarlet letter.

19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obliviousness, Agape, and Wizard Chess[edit]

This imaginary dialogue is nothing more than a mere flight of fancy...

Moulton: Is there any indication that anyone is learning anything, or otherwise making any progress?

SBJ: Policies that apply to all are much better than bans that apply to individuals.

Moulton: Ah, you are beginning to understand the fundamental concept of the Rule of Law, and why Article I of the US Constitution begins by ruling out Bills of Attainder. Of course, regressing to the Dark Ages and going to the Dark Side is also a choice that you are free to make, and no one can stop you, if that is your desire. Keep in mind, however, what Buddha noted. Attachment to the Lust for Power is a primary root cause of Suffering.

SBJ: I thought you weren't talking to me any more... ;p

Moulton: :-X

(Time passes.)

SBJ: You need to correct your little manipulative character bashing of me and fess up to what you really said to me before I'm going to give a flying fuck about what you have to say.

Moulton: May I quote you on that? (Signify your consent by remaining silent.)


Moulton: See, if you don't give a flying fuck about what I say, then you don't care if I quote you saying you are intentionally opting to become oblivious of what I say.


Moulton: All's fair in Agape and Wizard Chess.

(Thanks to Firelion for contributing the above imaginary dialogue.)

Moulton 11:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On Having a Buddha Nature[edit]

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

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

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

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

Odd Socracy Tackles Wikipedia's Toxic ad hoc Baletocratic Ochlocracy[edit]

Kelly Martin, formerly of the Wikimedia Foundation, introduced the term, ochlocracy, which is a fancy word for mob rule.

How does one tackle such an untamed and unlovable beast?

Only Gastrin Bombesin knows for sure.

Caprice 23:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I Have a Scream[edit]

There are those who are asking the devotees of academic research, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the scholar is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of anankastic control freaks. We can never be satisfied as long as our avatars heavy with the costumes of Po-Mo Theater, cannot gain stagecraft in the talk pages of the wikis and the blog pages of the nitty gritties. We cannot be satisfied as long as the scholar's basic modality is peripatetic migration from a smaller post to a larger tome. We can never be satisfied as long as our avatars are stripped of their costumes and robbed of their anonymity by a sign stating: "For Furries Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a goat herder in Pennsylvania cannot note why a scholar in Phoenix believes he has done nothing remotely of note. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until insight rolls down like thunder, and empathy like an enlightened dream.

I am not unmindful that some avatars have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some avatars have come fresh from inexplicably bad blocks. And some have come from wikis where the quest — quest for academic freedom — left them battered by the storms of Seahaven's hurricanes and staggered by the eclipse of Bomis totality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Wikipedia, go back to Meta-Wiki, go back to Wikipedia Review, go back to Moulton Lava, go back to IRC, go back to the Spammish Inquisitions of our sister wikis knowing that somehow this situation can and will be lampooned.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my fellow fiends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of slaying the Godzilla-King and his fearsome Basilisque, I still have a scream. It is a scream deeply rooted in the post-modern scream.

I have a scream that one day this Internet will rise up and live out the true intention of its creators: We hold these protocols to be self-referential, that all Internet hosts are creative prequels.

I have a scream that one day the red meat of ArbCom, the Someys of corny Iowa and the silly songs of atrocious bloggers will be able to canoodle together at the table of snickerhood.

I have a scream that one day even the staff of WMF, a staff bleating with the cry of obliviousness, sweltering with the heat of antipathy, will be transformed into an oasis of insight and transformation.

I have a scream that embattled detractors will one day thrive in a wiki where they will not be judged by the color of their animal costume but by the content of their character.

I have a scream today!

I have a scream that one day, down in Wikipedia, with its vicious PoV pushers, with its Cabalistas having their fingertips clicking with the words of "banhammer" and "desysop" — one day right there in Wikipedia little puppy dogs and little fingerlings will be able to join the circus with little clowns and ringleaders as amateur performers.

I have a scream today!

I have a scream that one day every study shall be exalted, and every anankastic control freak shall eat crow, the rough passages will be made smooth, and the crooked places will be made straight; and the glory of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, and Borat shall be revealed and all furries shall see it together.

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to this talk page with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our wikis into a beautiful symphony of avatarhood. With this faith, we will be able to study together, to think together, to struggle together, to endure bad blocks together, to stand up for academic freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day to write atrocious song parodies and utterly idiotic speeches.

Gastrin Bombesin 14:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I quote you on that and attribute it to the author who actually wrote your speech? —Montana Mouse 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Humankind's Original Logic Error[edit]

Sometimes in the course of human events it becomes necessary to diagnose long-festering errors in the architecture of the culture. One can recognize these ancient and poorly diagnosed errors because they persistently produce endless reruns of the same banal drama. In every generation an annoying iconoclastic thinker stands up and once again points out the recurring anachronistic errors that continue to disturb the functionality of the cultural system. Among these persistent errors is a notorious one that can be recognized by its prominence in the literature. One can find an early story about it in Genesis 2. Augustine of Hippo, while not a mathematician, offered a scholarly analysis of the same error. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote two novels about it. The founders of nearly every religion sought with indomitable passion to eradicate this error from the political landscape. In every case in history, the political powers that be fought back with corrupt power, employing violence, oppression, unjust condemnation, alienation, and even such sophomoric practices as immurement of outspoken and iconoclastic scholars in the janitorial hall closet. But there is always an escape route from this hoary error, because the name of the error is HOLE. One can always escape through the HOLE. And those who mistakenly think otherwise might well be laboring with a silly HOLE in their head. —Azazel Nation 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Experimental Manipulation[edit]

During the last few years, our cities have become giants of steel and concrete, organized by computers and electronic technology. It is safe to say than man has come to control his environment, and science and logic have explained everything, and yet there are many phenomena which reach beyond our knowledge and reason. But we don't accept them, and so we deny they exist. Mankind pleads to ideas of happiness and order, not willing to explore or understand the fearful dimensions of darkness that are empowered to the world we think we know.

1234 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Caprice, I am Lamont, how could it be not so obvious? 1234 13:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I never understood where LamontStormstar was coming from (not that I tried that hard to find out). But I'm curious. What's your backstory and what are your issues? Moulton 13:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Backstory[edit]

Untold centuries ago the basement dwellers, the mysterious Online Geeks, constructed the Eternal September for their own infernal amusement. Virtually nothing is known of these beings except that they savor the carnage and clamor of battle. As such, they have stocked the site with the greatest keyboard warriors of all time. And you have just joined their ranks.

As a gladiator during Eternal September, you must not only survive, but also win each and every battle against ever more powerful opponents. Don't worry overly much about getting "banned". The Geeks won't be cheated of their favorite sport by a little thing like blocks. Those who fall are instantly restored to life and immediately thrust back into the battle, perhaps a little wiser for their misfortunes.

When the drama, grief, and negative emotions settle, all warriors will have earned the right to battle again, providing further entertainment for the Geeks. But only the internet warrior who has griefed the most foes will be lauded as the winner. The victorious warrior advances to a more challenging array of sites, until new sites are progressively created. 1234 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Yah. World of Warcraft, Rift, et al. A lot of my friends play them. Moulton 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The major difference are organized guilds versus single guys with guns, or occasionally guys with guns organized in a team to pursue a common goal. Also, i've heard that the organized guilds generally require its members to be around for about 6 hours a day or so, bare minimum, 3 or 4 days each week. The organized guilds seem to be popular in South Korea, where people even sell accounts and players for a sum of money, and have professional tournaments. Think of StarCraft 2. 1234 13:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose part of the attraction (besides gaining mastery and leveling up) is the immersive graphics. My friends who play those games have high-end machines with high-end graphics. I prefer the Myst franchise (puzzle-solving) without the combat melees. Being a red-head, I don't get dopamine thrills from winning a round of battle. Rather, I get an endorphine high from solving difficult puzzles. Moulton 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Barsoom[edit]

What if solving a given difficult puzzle returns exactly no reward at the end? 321123 13:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • You automatically earn a reward for solving a hard puzzle. You invariably win an endorphin high, which (to my mind) is the best high there is in the whole wide world. Nothing beats it. (Not even sex.) Moulton 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


The Game[edit]

You lost it right now. 4321 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It only looks like a game. They're in if for the Dopamine lulz. I'm in it to midwife an elusive epiphany. When they balete cutting edge research from world-class scientists, it draws attention to it. They are doing me (and Simon Baron-Cohen) a great favor by acting out his diagnosis. Moulton 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


I don't remember. Go ask NawlinWiki. 4321 21:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • This one? - from NawlinCaprice - calling him a child molester (well, an excerpt from the 'child molester rap' anyways) - Alison 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, but nobody called him anything, it was in fact just a piece of text quoted from that song parody of Juvenile's "Ha". In any case they keep removing Moulton's innocuous musings going directly against policy, as saying "i want to expose my theory about liminal social drama" isn't insulting at all. 4321 00:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I take it that the oversighted item was somebody else's original material. The general rule with me is that they only oversight accurate educational material that is cutting edge research by world-class scientists. Moulton 02:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


It appears that most images in this category were taken by el señor Raymond in the eighties. One wonders what kind of dopamine or endorphine factor drives this person to take pictures of unsuspecting women accidentally showing something.

And it looks like a new dramatic play has been staged around Midnight68's creepy crappy art, so grab da poppkorn if y'aint got nuthin' to do rite now. A possible outcome is that they will finally delete the drawn panchira for good, and substitute the images with actual, 3d world panchira material, courtesy of Raymond, in the name of free culture! Isn't that great?

4321 23:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you've been living in Bologna for the last umpteen years, you may not know that there was an advertising blitz on American TV back in those days to market a line of seamless women's panties that did not have those dreaded VPLs. It's one of those things that nobody notices until some idiotic advertising blitz makes a big deal out of it and urges American consumers to buy some over-priced product they don't really need to solve a non-problem that no one really cares about.
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking; now heaven knows, anything goes." --Cole Porter
Moulton 02:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Occurrences of "Pedo"[edit]

1 - Nelio is a "American pedo college football coach" 2 - Metasearch engines creates "pedos what is known as a virtual database" 3 - DJ Aqeel: "Shake It Pedo Mix" 4 - Shane is a "pedo bear".

Nelio and Aqeel would surely complain. Perhaps nobody reads anymore.

4321 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  • And this guy has been labeled a 'pedo' for nearly 3 months. Libelpedia FTL :/ - Alison 02:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe we can market a line of clothing for some of WP's more agile editorial athletes. What used to be called flood pants can now be called "Pedo Pushers." Moulton 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


Have you had any contacts with ArbCom members? What kind of offers can one expect from them? Reportedly a lot of people contact them but nothing gets done, ever. For example, it's still unclear why Internodeuser / Zordrac / Blissyu2 was bashed and removed.

  1. 01:55, 27 February 2007 SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) blocked Zordrac (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (for obvious reasons)
  2. 14:04, 27 January 2006 Sjakkalle (talk | contribs) blocked Zordrac (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 355 days ‎ (Confirmed sockpuppet of User:Internodeuser, blocked indefinitely by Snowspinner but a temporary block overrode it, ban reset at 1 year minus ten days already "served".)

They let him come back Zordrac and e-wiki-prisoned for 355 days. His e-wiki-prison term ended 27 January 2007 and then the Slim bashed him "for obvious reasons" a month later. Golbez said "there are other reasons beyond ArbCom ruling". Not clear at all, and they all sound like 8 year old annoying child admins who ban older and wiser people from game servers. 4321 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    • They clearly cannot withstand someone with better arguments so they eliminate any opponents who can outsmart them. 4321 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • "The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair." - Well, that's concise and clear. Why were you banned exactly? You aren't a "paid editor", a "POV pusher", a "stalker", or a "vandal". You were bashed with a mallet after a mere 20 days after you started talking about R. Picard, which is much less time than the time taken to bash those pro-pedo pov pushers. So why exactly were you shown the door? Sanger and Finkelstein didn't receive this treatment, despite being much more anti-wikipedia in general than you. 4321 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You're asking for a Theory of Mind to explain the beliefs, motivations, and drives of a dozen erratic members of IDCab whom I had challenged. These editors had formed haphazard (and demonstrably false) Theories of Mind with regard to the beliefs of BLP subjects like Rosalind Picard, James Tour, David Berlinski, and a few others. They had published these false Theories of Mind without a shred of credible evidence to back up their ludicrous misconceptions about these BLP subjects. Rather than adhere to WMF Policy regarding BLPs, they initiated a sham RfC. When they couldn't find a valid pretext for blocking me, they just made one up. Ironically, the one Tracy Walker (User:KillerChihuahua aka "DeaTheater/B/Itch") came up with was even more ludicrous than the ones appearing in the erratic BLPs. She asserted that I was a "disruptive PoV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia," and posted that as her reason for indef blocking me, without community review. As you know, I eventually discovered that my case was not a one-off departure from the norm. The ArbCom case against FeloniousMonk revealed that there was a pervasive pattern of abuse. My case was so insignificant that it was below radar compared to all the others on the rap sheet against FeloniousMonk. So as to the Theory of Mind that you seek, I reckon Simon Baron-Cohen has now answered that. The members of IDCab appear to be characterized as Zero-Empathy Cluster B Sociopaths manifesting behavioral traits characteristic of Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Histrionic Personality Disorder. I doubt they were born that way, but something in their individual and collective history transformed them into a bullying and ethically-challenged gang of thugs. Moulton 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
What about this and this? It looks like a hatchet job, which was dutifully removed and cleaned but now they're restarting defaming him. 4321 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Part of the modus operandi of Zero-Empathy Cluster/B/Phucks is that they reprise such memorable practices as scapegoating, witch-hunts, and scarlet-lettering. It's all part of the culture of demonizing, stigmatizing, and narcissistic wounding. And, of course, it's the raw material for opera. Moulton 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Intimidating behaviour/harassment[edit]

Do I have this right? We are in an alternate universe where using someone's name is "intimidating behaviour/harassment"? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • We are definitely in an alternate universe. You have just entered the Twilight Zone. Moulton 20:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Note the corrosive effects of Bill of Attainder. Process and progress virtually ground to a halt here for the past few weeks, just as it has in other communities and cultures in the past where fatwahs, pogroms, and Bills of Attainder have been employed. Moulton 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that you?[edit]

Is that you doing the vandalism? Auggie 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I haven't been online since yesterday morning. This morning I'm visiting friends in New Hampshire, to celebrate Passover with them. We're about to have breakfast.
Check your e-mail. I had just a few minutes before everyone in the house got up for breakfast.
Moulton 14:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
All right, have a good time. Auggie 15:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Passover Songs[edit]

Go down, Moulton
Way down to Drama Land
Tell Old Cheka
To let Emopera flow.

All right[edit]

You've got a problem with alright now? Auggie 21:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "Alright" is not a word. It's "all right." —Moulton 02:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Alright" has been a word since at least 1887. --Checker 05:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • When did the phrase "lunatic vexagonistic scapegoat psychodrama" enter the literature? —Moulton 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cluster B[edit]

Do you think Cheka shows signs of Cluster B personality? If yes, why? 4321 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See also this cartoon short from Barsoom Tork Associates, featuring Alison and Auggie in an imaginary dialogue sketch ripped off from "Dr. Strangelove." —Moulton 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


How do you define learning? Can these two people be taught to become good learners? 300 20:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • You will find more than just my definition of it here. Every day, everybody is ready to learn something. What are you ready to learn right now? Let's learn that. Moulton 08:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Self Indulgence...[edit]

Perhaps they would be appropriate on Self Indulgence.. you could also paste a few in manually and see how that goes... I can create you an account on self indulgence if you are interested. Let me know. Thx. :) Wikademia 06:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  • What is "Self Indulgence"? Moulton 10:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Independence Day[edit]

Have you heard any word from Alison? Auggie 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Not with respect to the unresolved issues here. She's quite active on Facebook, but she seems to be boycotting this dangling drama. Moulton 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Not so much 'boycotting' as 'preoccupied'. I've a lot on my mind right now and am dealing with a bunch of IRL stuff. FailBook is my connection to my family and friends, is all, and wikis are anathema to me right now. Also, I'm not sure of what my role is here right now. How exactly can I help? - Alison 21:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I normally wouldn't bother you, but you did ask me to unblock Moulton. Long story short, he wants to post the alleged real name of Chihuahua. I don't want him to. See: User_talk:Auggie#Moulton. Auggie 23:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


What's up, Moulton? Happy holidays to you. Good to see you around. Auggie (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (CST)

Hi Auggie. Happy Holidays. Things are hopping among some of the old-timers who are now hanging out on Facebook. The Comic Emopera recurs from time to time, and so I reprise the Song Parody solutions as needed. Not surprisingly, many of the URL links to the original songs go stale, and so I update them. Moulton (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2014 (CST)
Interesting. Where on Facebook are you hanging out? I suppose the format has its advantages with less blocking, banning, voting people off the island and such. Auggie (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2014 (CST)
Alison Cassidy, Gregory Kohs, and Paul Wehage continue to comment on Wikipedia shenanigans from time to time. Cary Bass and Mike Godwin just blocked/defriended Paul. And Mike Godwin has long had me blocked on Facebook. Moulton (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2014 (CST)

Hey Doc[edit]

You still around?

You appear to be familiar with Cluster B personality disorders, but what about Cluster A and C? Public (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2017 (CST)

Not really around much anymore. And I am not really up on Clusters 'A' and 'C'. Moulton (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2018 (CDT)
Moulton!!! What's up wikibro? I think I owe you an apology as I finally found out what a death eater is. I also got to drink butterbeer in Florida. Hope you are well and feel free to stop by here anytime. Auggie (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2018 (CDT)
Hey Auggie. Did you finally get around to the Harry Potter series? Or was it just a visit to the theme park? I spend most of my time on Facebook these days, where more than half of the conversation is about the idiot in the Oval Office. Does the term "Dark Tetrad" mean anything to you? Moulton (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2018 (CDT)
Don't tell me. I'm almost at the end of book 6.
Yes Facebook can be a huge time suck. I tend to stay out of the political stuff except to occasionally do an obvious Trump impression to lighten the mood when people get too intense. Such a bunch of weak, low energy losers. Sad. :) Auggie (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2018 (CDT)

I sent you a message on Twitter, asking if you even have a working login on Facebook. I wanted to consult with you on some unclosed items that have been festering for more than a decade. Moulton (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2019 (CDT)

I emailed you. Will try to check Twitter if I can remember the password. Auggie (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (CDT)

Still at it, I see[edit]

What Mad Pursuit, indeed. I gave up on Wikiversity because I saw that it was intrinsically unsafe, a wiki is no safer for content creation than the commitment of the owner to academic freedom and fairness.

But I saw some disruption through impersonation socking -- that worked. So I dove in, made some steward requests, and exploded the plot.

But then, long story, short, Office banned, global lock. Wow! You know you are over the target when the flak gets thick.

Your useful discussions on the cold fusion article were deleted along with the entire resource by Mu301, who decided that fringe science was to be banned unless approved by a non-existent Original Research committee. However, that resource was moved to my wiki, at

And I was published under peer review on cold fusion, in a mainstream journal, no less. Life is empty and meaningless, but "empty and meaningless" is endless fun. --Abd (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2019 (CDT)

Social networks can devolve into toxic cultures. It was manifestly true in the Wikimedia projects, and it's long been true in the more conventional social network sites (like Facebook).
Cold Fusion has pretty much been exposed as junk science. In 2010, about a year after I finished my analysis of the errors in McKubre's work at SRI, his project there became the subject of a scandal. EPRI pulled his funding and shut down his project. A few years later, McKubre resigned from SRI and retired back to New Zealand.
Moulton (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2019 (CDT)
Moulton, you still have no clue. Cold fusion is very much alive, and very well funded. My expenses are paid.
EPRI had not funded LENR for many years, funding shifted to governmental customers for SRI, Tanzella took over that lab, which was shut down, management shifts, etc. He's now an independent consultant, major customer is Brillouin Energy, which has some interesting work, but nothing truly breakthrough. There is other stuff going on that I find of higher interest, such as the recognition that there are two more phases of palladium deuteride that were unknown until 1993, and that just might explain the material problem. Ordinary PdD does nothing, a new phase must form, and that phase is very rare and difficult to create. At least that's the idea. Because this is a trillion dollar issue, I suspect that research is under way, but in secret. There are commercial activities, with hundreds of millions of dollars available if needed.
McKubre retired, he'd been doing this for many years. I see him fairly frequently, but travelling is a bit difficult for him. It happens to us. What you have done is create a story that satisfies you, which is, of course, your privilege. Your discussions on Wikiversity were useful. Dieter Britz turned his database over to me, entirely, he's also getting quite old.
I will look at your analysis, and maybe review it. It is very hard to find decent skeptical commentary, most of it is pseudoskeptical, which yours was, but ... even pseudoskeptics can come up with analysis worth considering. Real skeptics are not content with the kind of shallow non-sequitur arguments you just presented. Just sayin'. --Abd (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2019 (CDT)
barry-kort-analysis-of-ac-burst-noise-in-cold-fusion-electrolytic-cells. I have copied the paper there for detailed review. I'm assuming permission. If not, let me know so I can chop it up into chunks. I will intersperse response in a distinctive face, and comments are open. But a quick reaction: You have made a colossal error, blatantly obvious, and I think this was pointed out years ago, and I don't see that you addressed it. But we will see. The objection arises fairly commonly, so it's worth addressing. Meanwhile, if you believe you have a real criticism of scientific value, the Journal of the Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science does publish skeptical papers of value. As well, Current Science, where I was published in 2015, might be starving for critical papers on the 34 they published. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2019 (CDT)
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." ~Richard P. Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, Caltech, 1974
Moulton (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2019 (CDT)
Yes, words to live by. You do remember that I sat in the Feynman physics lectures at Cal Tech, 1961-63, right? He is probably the strongest single influence on my life, setting aside Samuel L. Lewis. Now here we are, my friend, fifty years later, and who is the easiest person to fool? And what are the signs? --Abd (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2019 (CDT)
The main sign is to be found in a cavalier departure from the protocols of the scientific method. Richard Garwin was right. McKubre erred in assuming there was no need to include an AC term in his energy budget model. Moulton (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2019 (CDT)
You are using Feynman's comment as if it can be used to critique others. But Feynman was not talking about others. I will respond on the AC term, but it was clearly negligible, and I think I can show why, and you have ignored a great deal of other evidence, as you did back in 2011. That discussion will take place on the page I created for the purpose, referring as well to our old discussions and the paper written by Dieter Britz.
Now, once again, will you answer the question I asked, instead of answering about who, not present in this discussion, was "right" and who was "wrong," which do not exist? Who is the easiest person to fool, and what are the signs that we have fooled ourselves? --Abd (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2019 (CDT)
If it pleases you to fool yourself, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your fervently held religious beliefs? Moulton (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2019 (CDT)
  • Thank you. As you wish for others, it is granted for you. --Abd (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2019 (CDT)
And since you added it, thanks for that link to the ecstasy video. I have collected all I could find of your writings on cold fusion, to start organizing the material, which was something I never did on Wikiversity, particularly after I concluded it was not a safe place to work on content. It's all here and on subpages and as linked. Let me know if I've missed anything important. I do have some questions.
  1. When did you write "Analysis of AC Burst Noise in Cold Fusion Electrolytic Cells"?
  2. Do you have copies of your correspondence with Ed Storms, Robert Duncan, or others relevant that you could share?
  3. Do you have anything to add or correct with the cited writings, or anything else of related interest?
No rush. I would ordinarily notify you if there is anything of possible significance added there, let me know if you object to this.
My professional rates are $250/hr, payable in advance. I assume that is far beyond your means or expense budget. Moulton (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2019 (CDT)
Like I wrote, I'll let you know! --Abd (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2019 (CDT)
Roger that. Moulton (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2019 (CDT)
There is a convincing narrative for every conceivable opinion or belief, and a convicting narrative for every skeptic, critic, or infidel.
I conclude that the Method of Comparative Narratives (supplemented by the Method of Demonization) is not a reliable method for arriving at the ground truth.
Moulton (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2019 (CDT)
Of course it isn't. Who is seeking to arrive there, when there is no distance to travel? --Abd (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2019 (CDT)
Philosophers (Epistemologists), Theologians, Diagnosticians, Detectives, and Scientists are among those in pursuit of the Ground Truth. (They stand in sharp contrast to Politicians, Fraudsters, Charlatans, and Bamboozlers.) Moulton (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2019 (CDT)


Join ChocoWiki - the free chocolate encyclopedia. DoveWindsor (Talk to me!) 04:18, 24 May 2019 (CDT)

The Lamed-Vav[edit]

In the Kabbalah, there is the Legend of the Lamed-Vav — the Legend of the Thirty-Six.

Why Thirty-Six?

As a mystical concept, the number 36 is intriguing. It is said that at all times there are 36 special people in the world, and that were it not for them — all of them — if even one of them was missing, the world would abruptly come to an end.

The two Hebrew letters for 36 are the Lamed, which is 30, and the Vav, which is 6. Therefore, these 36 are referred to as the Lamed-Vav Tzadikim.

This widely-held belief — this most unusual Jewish concept — is based on a Talmudic statement to the effect that in every generation 36 Righteous Scholars "greet the Shekhinah" — the Divine Presence.

And so, the Thirty-Six are known as the Lamed-Vav in the Kabbalah.

In the Template for the Maieutic Method of Socrates, there are six cycles of six questions (Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How). The six levels range upward from the most concrete to the most abstract.

There has to be someone prepared to stand up and ask whichever of the 36 questions is most timely and appropriate at any juncture in the Talmudic Plenary or Colloquium. If any one of the 36 is missing, the Conversation will abruptly come to a grinding halt when it reaches that crucial juncture.

Tzadikim ("Righteous Ones") means Conscientious, Ethical, Attentive, Studious, and Just.

And so it's useful to have a handy template for the 36 questions — six cycles of six questions — in the Maieutic Method of Socrates.

One of the reasons I wrote up that Socratic Method Template was to remind me to consider each of the six kinds of questions, at each of the relevant levels of abstraction, so as to keep the learning process moving forward.

Moulton (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2019 (CDT)

Interesting. I think of Kabbalah as something people did in the dark ages before TV and the internet to pass the time. Lots of superstition, arguing for its own sake, and thinking in circles. But it's good you're getting some of this written down. Auggie (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2019 (CDT)
Kabbalah was one of the earliest attempts to introduce the discipline of Model-Based Reasoning to members of the community who were not already in the Rabbinate. Today, this practice is called Systems Thinking, and it's both a secular discipline and a fundamental aspect of science. Moulton (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2019 (CDT)


Good morning to you, sir! DoveWindsor (Talk to me!) 05:17, 7 June 2019 (CDT)

Question: Does the phrase, "Labhair Gaeilge dom, más maith leat!" mean anything to you? Moulton (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2019 (CDT)
Yes! I am multilingual speaker. You are saying from Irish: "Speak to me, if you like!" DoveWindsor (Talk to me!) 15:56, 8 June 2019 (CDT)
Do you know the person from Encyc who uses that phrase as her signature greeting on Twitter? Moulton (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2019 (CDT)