User talk:Moulton

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Truth in Advertising

Every Sunday, mourning, over WVBD ...

B&D s’fargenigen.
B&D s’men ken a bootkick krigen.
A schnook, a Kort, a drama queen.
Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing.

[Source: Red Buttons via The Barton Brothers' Borscht Belt comedy schtick "Joe and Paul" with Klezmer music accompaniment by Sholom Secunda, courtesy of the NPR Yiddish Radio Project.]

Please use this talk page as if it were yours, Moulton. --Diego Grez 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only use this if I am logged out, and editing as an IP. How about renaming this page to be User:Caprice or User:Montana_Mouse? Moulton 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably not, these names are blacklisted, remember. :) --Diego Grez 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See User:Caprice. --Abd 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


And Caesar said[edit]

"Just as he laid hands upon the just man named Christ, in like manner also shall he fall, and not find safety." Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And the crowd said:[edit]

Free him!. Please allow Caprice to edit this page and the user page, unless the edits themselves are policy violations, pending further review by the community. --Abd 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I see I get to be the first to welcome you back, officially as Moulton. There may be some technical glitches, I don't know, but I assume they can be handled. (Like, you might not be able to create user pages unless the local whitelist bypasses the global pagename blacklist.) Let us know. For the moment, I'm still able to edit the whitelist.... I'm not seeing any restrictions set for you, so, mazel tov. Be nice. --Abd 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Golly. Nobody bothered to tell me that SBJ had done this. JWS just told me on IRC a minute ago. —Moulton 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me to notify Caprice.... I should have. So file a Community Review on me for Failure To Notify The Returning Hero's Clown Sock Who Was Forced into a Straight Role. Or as straight as is possible for you. No, you weren't gone, but I think you did admit that it was a bit difficult to edit at certain times, like when half the U.S. East Coast was range-blocked to keep you from saying "Nyah, nyah, can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!" Now you can walk through the front door, showing your ID badge -- strike that, "ID" is a Bad Word -- and be welcomed into the Circles of Power. Or Whatever. The Circles of Useless Debate and Debauchery. Something like that.
Are you ready to consider a candidacy for custodianship? Am I totally insane?
Yes. Next question?
Seriously, it's quite a nuisance, getting to clean up piles of useless junk left behind by other users who were what used to be called Stupid Active. That was uncivil and is no longer politically correct. "Clue-Challenged Busy Beavers?" Being able to block is over-rated. I guarantee it. --Abd 03:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I explained to SBJ (as if he didn't already know) the kind of governance model under which I would consent to have tools. For reasons that he can explain better than me, that kind of governance model is exceedingly unlikely to be adopted here. —Moulton 03:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't commit wiki-suicide[edit]

[1] If I have to do this again, Barry, I'll either block you or turn you over to the tender mercies of the crowd. You know better than to post a link that blatantly outs a user who doesn't want his real name used, no matter how silly you or I might think it. If he says he doesn't mind, when he has a chance, well, then, in the words of the Immortal, Emily Latella, Never Mind. --Abd 10:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Nem zich a vaneh.Barsoom Tork 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, [2]. So, Emily Latella has the last word. Enjoy! No more enforcement of outing policy with that user. Yay! --Abd 16:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Emily Latella??? Whodat? Oh! Gilda Radner's SNL character, Emily Litella, who always got everything wrong. Never mind.Moulton 17:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the aptosis program you run is active again. The "outing," intensified beyond what I mentioned above, and your editing of my comments at [3], are signs. Is that what you want? --Abd 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice[edit]

It's a cold winter here, could last a while. I haven't lived in Massachusetts that long, you have experience. Should I be knitting some socks? --Abd 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, [4] was one of the funniest edits I've seen in a while. Maybe ever. Something about the melody for that. Didn't somebody famous write it?

There is a Wikipedia article on Funiculì, Funiculà that provides the background on its origin and composition. Here is a brief performance by The Three Tenors, with Zubin Mehta conducting.
What you need for this weather is not more sox, but a Kotatsu. You can make one by draping a coverlet or table cloth over your keyboard table and placing a space heater underneath it. My keyboard table is 3' x 4', which leaves plenty of space in front of my feet to park a 1000-watt electric space heater.
Moulton 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have an electric throw. Hey, I'm a Californian. What is this cold white stuff, anyway? Now, will the Kotatsu cover the cinder blocks? I have winter boots, do I reboot? --Abd 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's called corn snow, and it's crunchy under the foot. It's unusual to get that variety. —Moulton 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And that snow joke. Actually, we mostly have powder here. Fluffy. My cat just caught a mouse. Very fat mouse. --Abd 04:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! Sorry! That was ... a metaphor, yeah, a metaphor! Just a figure of speech, and I'm sure the cat released the mouse, she was just making its acquaintance. Now, about those socks. Doesn't look like I'll need them this winter. But you never know. --Abd 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Uh huh. —Albatross 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Why! --Draubb 15:35, 11 February 2011

Why not? —Moulton 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You do know this question was about this, posted at 15:28, right? --Abd 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, but the answer was in the edit summary. —Moulton 19:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
And you think the user reads edit summaries? Maybe. Maybe not. He can say if he likes. If he sees this. I don't know what this user is looking at. Eventually I will. --Abd 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have copious evidence virtually no one looks at anything I write. Or if they look at it, they don't understand it. —Moulton 20:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Aaqib, Moulton thinks I write too much, so he referred to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Really what's going on is that he doesn't like what I write and what I'm trying to do, so he uses length as a way to criticize it. He thinks should I tell you to ask your teacher to come to the computer and then I should tell your teacher he or she is doing a Bad Job making sure you only do good things. I think that's a Bad Idea. What do you think? What would your teacher think? What would you do if I asked you to do that? I can guess, but it would be up to you. --Abd 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why prompt him with the answer you want? Let him learn to think for himself. —Moulton 20:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I didn't prompt his answer, I don't know what he'll answer, I can just guess, and I just said I thought it was a Bad Idea, which he might have seen elsewhere anyway. He will think for himself no matter whether I "let him" or not. --Abd 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, you did. —Moulton 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Dense, you are, Barry. I acknowledged that as what I said. "Bad Idea" is not what I think he'll answer, it's what I think, but I suppose it's possible he'll echo that. So sue me. Why did you think you needed to paint the town red? --Abd
  • I predict mimesis. Moulton 02:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That would represent success, Moulton. It's one of the stages of education. On the other hand, what about emesis? Have you looked at the history of this user? Do you think that defiance, for example, would be a behavior introduced by me, here, for him to imitate? I'd say you should look at the global contributions before concluding that! I doubt that you have bothered to look. You just see what you think is "bad behavior," and you reject it. Consider, Moulton, what your response looks like when it is happening to you, from others! You are globally locked, you are permitted to edit here for now. That may not last, precisely because you are so defiant, yourself.
  • Aaqib, Moulton is a serious problem user, prohibited from editing most wikis. But he seems to think you should be treated sternly, by us, and perhaps by your teacher. He is proposing for you what he dislikes for himself.
  • I've been doing what I think we should do: we should welcome you and help you to do what you want to do, as long as you learn to not do what causes trouble for others. I treat my kids this way, and it's how I like to be treated. It's also how I've treated Moulton.
  • My first set of kids have grown up, becoming parents themselves, and they are doing very well, thanks, God. I'm not your parent, I'm just trying to be your friend. I'm treating you as I want to be treated, myself, with respect. If I don't like what you do, I'll talk with you about it, not call in your teacher or your parents. I believe that if you are treated with respect, you will -- in the end -- be nice in return. Usually! You are also young, and will try out different things, it's part of being your age. It is part of learning quickly, which you can do better than those of us who are older. --Abd 18:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Moulton. I think we're making some progress with reforming Community Review to make it more useful and approachable. I've created a "resolutions" subpage in the interests of adopting the things we might agree upon, and leaving the things we still need to discuss for later. My hope is that by getting these reforms through we will be able to pursue further reforms, since that's pretty much what CRs should do.

With that in mind, please comment on Wikiversity:Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions.

I'm leaving this note because you've already commented. If you comment on nothing else, please let your opinion be clear on using the sitenotice (part of resolution #4). --SB_Johnny talk 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Mike has identified an issue that may be one of our first (and possibly most controversial) reviews of a policy. This has to do with referring to established authors of published works, where those authors are not members of the Wikiversity community, but do publish their works on other WMF-sponsored sites. —Moulton 23:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton's research subpage[edit]

Re: [5] The page in question contains personal names in violation of WV:Privacy. I have hidden older edits due to the inclusion of personal information and incivility towards you, but have left the last two versions so we can discuss this. The page is now protected from editing due to multiple reversions by you and anonymous editors. Please explain why you think it is within Wikiversity policy to include those personal names in the subpage. --mikeu talk 15:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Response from Abd removed per request from Mu301 (mikeu) --Abd 18:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Those are the names of the well-known authors of published biographies and associated commentaries on the professional work of notable academics. It is customary in academic work to reference the relevant published writings of others. On Wikipedia, when one is citing the work of other authors working in the field, it is customary to provide such references. Can you imagine preparing academic research that failed to identify the well-known authors of cited works? Moulton 23:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'd describe them as "well-known" (are they published somewhere other than your blogs?), and aside from one of them (who apparently is himself an academic), the only really notable thing about them is that they're not notable (at least in an academic sense). Offered merely as something to think about. --SB_Johnny talk 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They are writing authoritative articles of an encyclopedic nature on one of the most commonly consulted sites on the Internet. They are as well known in the subject-matter fields they write on as other authors who have written extensively on the subject matter in question. —Moulton 00:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that because nobody else has written about the subject matter in question? Just not sure what you mean there.
  • Regardless, what's interesting to me is that they seem to be amateur researchers with no particular claim to expertise... beyond that they're just not of much interest. --SB_Johnny talk 01:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are mostly amateur researchers and amateur encyclopedists writing in areas outside their regular professions. Of them, only Ian Ramjohn is a credentialed academic. He is a Botanist at the University of Oklahoma, and thus has some responsibility to ensure that his published work passes scientific muster. However, he has no credentials as an authoritative biographer who analyses frame of mind or belief system of other academics whom he has never met or communicated with. Moulton 01:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which brings us back to whether their actual identities are in any way interesting :-). --SB_Johnny talk 01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • When someone writes and publishes an authoritative document of an encyclopedic nature, the reader has both a need and right to know who the author is, what their credentials and affiliations are, and how to contact them to discuss and correct any errors. Publishers have an ethical responsibility in this regard, and I was frankly gobsmacked when Jimbo Wales declared that reviewing and attending to such ethical responsibilities was "beyond the scope" of the project. —Moulton 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, but these "authors" don't exactly have any editorial control... all this is likely to achieve is that the next group will be even more attentive to the covering of tracks. --SB_Johnny talk 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They have been using corrupt practices to maintain editorial control for years. And they maintained this editorial control even after ArbCom smacked down FeloniousMonk for adopting and perfecting those corrupt practices. You should talk to Charles Ainsworth about this. He is one of the few straight shooters who has the cojones to go after these bullies. —Moulton 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not my battle, so I'm not going to talk to anyone about it (other than you, of course). You haven't exactly responded to my suggestion. --SB_Johnny talk 17:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What suggestion?!? I just searched in page for the word "suggestion" and the only match is the item above, which refers to an unreferenced suggestion that cannot be found anywhere on this page. —Moulton 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The suggestion was that going after individual editors would be akin to herding cats. --SB_Johnny talk 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Like other rules forced upon the Wikiversity community since the Hostile Takeover of 2008, WV:Privacy is not used to promote the mission of Wikiversity. WV:Privacy is used to protect misguided POV-pushers who disrupt the educational mission of Wikimedia. The currently active bureaucrats should resign and let the Wikiversity community get back to its mission rather than providing protection for those who have vastly disrupted Wikiversity...assorted policy-violators and people who should be prosecuted for their sicking online harassment of those who dare to discuss their actions. --JWSchmidt 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • John is right. When an author writes and publishes an authoritative analysis or commentary on a subject of public interest, that author can be expected to be referenced in subsequent reviews. Mike, the authors in question all have voluntarily disclosed their real names, just as I have, just as John has, just as Roger Schlafly has, and just as you have. —Moulton 00:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have a reference somewhere where they made these disclosures? That would make this whole discussion moot. --SB_Johnny talk 01:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the same way that members of IDCab looked up my name. See, for example, this section, which documents the fact that the practice of linking WP login names with real names was both commonplace and reciprocal. Here on Wikiversity, you were among the first one to address me by my real name on my own talk page. Note that KillerChihuahua followed suit here. If you and Tracy Walker and Paul Mitchell (among others) can address me by my real name both here and on Wikipedia, how can it suddenly be an egregious violation of policy for me to reciprocate? After all, the three of you were Administrators, setting the example of customary practice.

Moulton 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, looks like the first two obviously aren't a problem for the privacy policy. The other 3 are in a bit of a gray area. --SB_Johnny talk 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Guettarda has copious information on his old user page with his background and interests, from which it's easy to find his off-wiki pages. He also has a page in his real name: User:Ian Ramjohn. —Moulton 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good on that one. What about the other two? --SB_Johnny talk 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
How long will Wikiversity bureaucrats keep using their toy banhammers to disrupt Wikiversity and prop up IDcab?

It appears that a major motivation of IDcab for forcing upon Wikiversity a rule about "outing" was due to the penchant of IDcab members for violating the terms of their employment by using their employer's computer resources to violate Wikipedia policy and to perform acts of online harassment. Then they learned that it was possible to game the system and get Jimbo and abusive sysops into a tizzy by shouting "outing", even while they practiced "outing" themselves. It is a disgrace to Wikimedia and vastly disrupting to the Wikiversity mission that a few abusive Wikimedia functionaries continue to selectively enforce a hodgepodge of rules so as to protect those who disrupt the educational mission of Wikimedia and so as to persecute honest Wikimedians who dare to discuss the disruptive practices of IDcab and other practiced gamers of the system. The currently active Wikiversity bureaucrats should resign and let the Wikiversity community get back to its mission rather than playing the sickening game of providing protection for those who have so vastly disrupted Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 13:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where other names are used without permission at Wikiversity, so that a Custodian may either rectify any appearance of selective enforcement, or at the very lest a Custodian can explain why it was not done. -- darklama  15:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please provide us with a list of the names of all Wikimedians who object to having their name mentioned. --JWSchmidt 16:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Who is "us"? Why a list? Why a list of objectors? Why Wikimedians? News reporters ask permission from their sources to refer to them by name, and credit news to an anonymous source if they don't want to be named. Researchers ask participants to sign paperwork that includes an agreement giving them permission to release information, usually the release of information is in an anonymous form unless the paperwork included an agreement to refer participants by name. If anything, I should ask you to provide the community with a list of people that have given you permission to use their name in your research, but I think the policy is to assume in good faith that you have obtained permission to use a person's name, until someone removes that name or requests that name be removed. A person removed names from Moulton's research, so permission can no longer be assumed in good faith.
Please point out where other names were removed and added back to Wikiversity, so that a Custodian may rectify it or explain why it was not done for discussion. -- darklama  16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
JWSchmidt has a valid point here, but so does Darklama. Carry on :-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SB_Johnny [6] [7] and Darklama [8] [9]. Moulton has provided links that he claims support the contention that this subpage is not in violation of WV:Privacy as requested. At this time we don't have a specific complaint about the page, just a few anon edits that removed some names but not others. If anyone has objections to the inclusion of names or any other info in a particular page they should discuss it on the talk page of the author or make a request at WV:RCA. The page is restored and unprotected. --mikeu talk 14:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Unless and until some aggrieved party comes forward to lodge a complaint, I move we close the discussion of this issue here and, going forward, leave the referenced subpage unlocked. —Moulton 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, isn't that what I just said? --mikeu talk 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. I hope other would-be enforcers of some randomly invoked policy concur with your conclusion, so that we don't replay this tiresome scene yet again with some other Custodian in the starring role. —Moulton 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Conclusions[edit]

I propose to conclude that:

  1. The editors in question are published authors outside of WMF and/or outside of WV, who are not members of the WV community.
  2. The editors in question have routinely addressed each other (and me) by real names.
  3. The Privacy Policy is being improperly invoked to apply to outside published authors.
  4. The Privacy Policy is being improperly used as a selective weapon of choice, rather than as an intelligent guideline regarding the conventions in academia for referencing the published writings of authors operating outside of Wikiversity.

Moulton 17:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all but #1 (and even there, only for 2 out of the 5). I also think this has been a far more fruitful discussion than past ones on the same topic have been. --SB_Johnny talk 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this discussion has been more civil and rational. No comment yet on the proposed conclusions as I have yet to read all of the above links. --mikeu talk 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Moulton, Re: #4 - how has the Privacy Policy been used in a "selective" way since it was adopted [10] last fall? --mikeu talk 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You invoked it yesterday to let stand unauthorized edits to a document that bore my signature so that the document which appears is not the one I wrote or signed my name to. Moreover, that document is academic research that presents evidence of corruption and cover-up of revelations of moral bankruptcy. In letting stand those unauthorized edits, you become complicit in tampering with research data and falsifying the record which I propose to submit as evidence of that corruption and cover-up. You are acting as plaintiff, arresting officer, bailiff, custodian of evidence, prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, and executioner here. Could you just pick one of those roles, and recuse yourself from playing the others? —Moulton 19:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on some of the comments from SBJ above and in the spirit of a fully informed debate on the issues, I have unhid the said revisions. The page is still protected for the duration of this debate so that we can reach an agreement on how our policy applies here. --mikeu talk 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Research published at Wikiversity is still Wikiversity published, regardless of who and what membership they have.
  2. Permission is assumed, unless people act or request to stop it, because we cannot read people's minds to know what they want or do not want.
  3. When you use an author's name in your research, you implicitly make an outside published author an insider.
  4. What conventions for referencing published writings are you referring to? The Harvard System suggests "if the author of a source is anonymous, replace the author’s surname with the title of the work in the brackets containing the reference."
In other words, when an author wishes not to be referred by name they are anonymous and you should refer to the title of their work instead, which in this case means you use Wikipedia or specific Wikipedia articles as the title of the work. -- darklama  19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical reminders. Some Wikipedians (IDcab) violated the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. When they were caught in the act, they got a corrupt sysop to impose a bad block on Moulton. When Moulton came to Wikiversity, IDcab sent a wikiassassin to Wikiversity to get Moulton banned. Rather than defend Wikimedia and protect Wikiversity as a place for study, research and learning, SB Johnny and his henchmen became meat puppets for IDcab, viciously driving away honest Wikiversity participants and enforcing Wikipedia policies (including the policy on "outing") at Wikiversity...even giving sysop tools to the wikiassassin who had vastly disrupted Wikiversity.
Proposal. All the disruptive rules forced upon Wikiversity since the Hostile Takeover should be rescinded, SB Johnny and his henchmen should resign and let Wikiversity return to being a peaceful learning community. All the special assistance given to IDcab by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries is a disgrace and should end at once. There should be a truth and reconciliation process to correct all of the disruption caused at Wikiversity since the Hostile Takeover of 2008. --JWSchmidt 19:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Counter-Proposal — I propose a Truth and Reconciliation Process to air out and resolve the grievances that have festered since the summer of 2008. Sunlight and fresh air are the best disinfectants here, and I believe the time is now ripe to right the wrongs and establish a more peaceable and collaborative learning community, populated by scholars who subscribe to the highest standards of Scholarly Ethics.Moulton 22:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A few quick remarks: First of all, the fact that other people have tried to out users on Wikipedia Review or on Hive Mind is in no way a reason to think that those editors have volunteered to give up their privacy rights. Second, the notion that editors on communal wikis somehow give up their basic rights to anonymity runs directly counter to the entire point of the foundation privacy policy (if this functioned this way it would have literally no effect). Finally, regarding user real names, I can confirm that I don't particularly care about my own name being spread around but that the other users in question are all deeply concerned about there names (correct or not correct) being bandied about as part of harassment. Moreover, there has been a serious problem in the past where people have been incorrectly "outed" as people they are not (At least two different other people have been erroneously claimed to be JoshuaZ on Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects. One reason I added my actual name to my user page was to reduce problems for those uninvolved bystanders). Outing people in this manner unquestionably has a large risk of that occurring. Finally, I will note that everything JWSchmidt has said about the so-called "IDcabal" is factually wrong, and claiming that people misused their employers' resources is an extremely dangerous and potentially damaging accusation to make in public and I would remind people of the real world damage such false accusations can do. If Moulton has actual content issues to bring up in regards to other Wikipedia projects (such as his concerns about NPOV and sourcing issues on Wikipedia's David Berlinski article) he is welcome to communicate with me via email about those concerns. This will be my one and only communication about this matter on Wikiuniversity. I don't intend to discuss this further. JoshuaZ 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Your privacy rights are not violated, Joshua. You are a published author, affiliated with Yale University, who edits biographies of living people on one of the most widely visited web sites on the Internet. As a published author, readers around the world have an interest in knowing something about your credentials as an authority competent to craft articles of an encyclopedic nature regarding the published work of your fellow academics. Your conduct on Wikipedia, Joshua, is frankly atrocious. Your work on Wikipedia is sadly lacking in academic integrity, accuracy, and scholarly ethics. You would be wise to return to your studies at Yale and abandon the practice of publishing inaccurate and defamatory articles about identifiable living people who are your colleagues in academia. As to communicating my concerns, Joshua, I intend to do so in public venues where you participate. —Moulton 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
And he should not have to discuss it further. I have no opinion about JoshuaZ's alleged participation in the "IDCab," because I have not researched it. I do know that sometimes Wikipedia process has been abusive, and that ad hoc factions of editors, sometimes with some level of off-wiki collaboration, have done damage there, and I've suffered from that myself. However, the kind of personal attack that Moulton -- and some others -- have settled on, is not going to improve the situation, it simply hardens positions and makes resolution more difficult. I was asked to stay off this page by Mu301, who was attempting to negotiate something with Moulton, and who apparently got derailed, so I'm back. "Outing" isn't really the issue here, though it sharpens the edges. The issue is the abuse of Wikiversity as a haven for harsh criticism of editors at other wikis, without research guidelines to cover ethical issues. It will create disruption. Page deletion can be undone, if it's thought necessary to discuss the issue. Leaving the page open causes continual harm. Since Moulton objected to editing to remove the real names, that leaves deletion as the only option, pending. A redacted version, if Moulton permits, could be made available for use in discussion. --Abd 20:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Communique from the Dark Junta[edit]

I have been authorized to transmit this Joint Communique from the Dark Junta:

Odd Socracy Tackles Wikiversity's ad hoc Ochlocracy

The Dark Junta (aka the ad hoc Ochlocracy) that controls Wikiversity through Secret Back Room Deals has decreed the following Communique...

The Privacy Policy does not apply to published authors who, on sites beyond the the control of this Community of Wikiversitans, openly publish their original research, commentaries, and critiques for the world at large to read. This includes the corrupt editors of IDCab, whose moral bankruptcy is under review by Wikiversity's intrepid researchers, Moulton, JWSchmidt, and Thekohser (among others).

The above Joint Communique was crafted with the wording suggested by Moulton, whose real name we decline to mention.

Moulton 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Privacy rights of research subjects[edit]

If you are honestly using these people for research, then it is an ethical obligation to hide their identities. I don't remember any medical or psychological research model using ethical standards which did not hide identities and instead used "subject A" or similar identifiers. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I am engaging them as peer professionals and openly critiquing their published work. I have no "theory of mind" regarding their interior psychology. —Moulton 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Peer review is normally done blindly and not in public. If you are writing a review of a published work (not peer reviewed, as peer review is pre-publication), then you would address the pen name of the individual to be consistent with how the publication was published. Otherwise, you are not following academic standards. I do not refer to Mark Twain as Samuel Clemens when I am analyzing a work published under Mark Twain, do I? Only a biography of the individual, which is not the purview of Wikiversity nor are you qualified to indulge in, would discuss the relationships between pen names and real names, and would still favor the pen name's usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Baloney. When authors publish in their field, other authors publish their reviews and criticisms, sometimes in correspondence with the journal, and sometimes in other venues. Moulton 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
When I discuss authors, I use their publication name connected to the publication. That is standard and always has been standard. You are pulling an Abd where you are dramatically reimagining how things actually work to fit your desired outcome. You always address the pen name attached to a publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Before there were Wikis, there was E-Mail and UseNet and other venues where we had login IDs or nicks that we used in discussions. But when we cited each other's publications, we used real names. —Moulton 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No. As I said before with Mark Twain, this has -always- been the case that we always refer to writers by their pen names. As someone with more publications than you and advanced knowledge and background in both bibliography and academic criticism, I would think my statements would get more respect when the person disagreeing with me is mostly just a lab worker and not a writer. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ottava, your willingness to dismiss the "lab worker" speaks volumes. I'm having a hard time seeing your objection to this as being due to anything other than a self-interested motive of keeping your own name from being associated with your "contributions" here and on Wikipedia (which is understandable, because you have a lot to be embarrassed about). --SB_Johnny talk 00:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Appeal to authority much? Logical fallacies used in an open conversation are usually laughed at unless you're only used to chatting to 8th graders. Dinsdale 02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ha ha. —Moulton 02:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Appeals to authority are not only respected but primary in arguments dealing with history and events. Do you go to random strangers or trained specialist doctor when you have cancer? Experience, training, and expertise actually matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh please. You are a pseudonym, an enigma, a user account with unaccountably poor grammar and sentence structure for one who claims the education that you do. Essjay claimed many things and all were shown to be ashes. Why on earth would you assume that your credentials exceed mine? "You think that's air your breathing in here? Hmmm...." Dinsdale 06:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
SB Johnny, it is common practice and the only sensible thing to address the author of a work by the name they publish the work under unless they have republished the work under their own name later. Hence, we have books, criticism, etc, on Mark Twain. If Moulton wants to pretend to be an academic, he should conform to academic standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S., if you don't want to be a hypocrite with your threats about outing, why not reveal your own real life name. It is kinda strange how you hide your identity while making such nasty statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which reminds me... Did you disappear yourself on Facebook? —Moulton 03:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "As I said before with Mark Twain, this has -always- been the case that we always refer to writers by their pen names."

Oh really? Did you bother to read the Wikipediar article on Mark Twain?

Mark Twain

Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), called "the Great American Novel", and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876).

Moulton 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about academic reviews of his work. That is not a review. You should know better. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you want literary reviews. Why didn't you say so in the first place.

Rime and Punishment

Ottavion Adambromovich Raskolnikov is a young ex-student of letters, law, and lust living in extreme poverty in St Jimboland. He lives in a tiny backwater where he rants, although due to a lack of fun has been avoiding learning for quite some time (he claims the gloom aggravates his depression). He acts like a grouch using old papers as a dildofap, and due to lack of motivation studies very rarely, although the neighbors sometimes send their sockpuppets into his quarters with food for thought. He is frequently referred to as a former student because he doesn't have the desire to finish his education. Spiritually, physically (due to lack of outdoor exercise) and emotionally distressed, his behaviour in public becomes progressively more erratic through the drama as madness gradually consumes him. Raskolnikov fluctuates between extremes of altruism and inexplicable antipathy. He is described by his acquaintances as "extremely blue" and many other observers in the dark state that he is very intelligent, but tragically misguided.

In The Crime of the Ancient Mariner, Raskolnikov kiboshes an Albatross with a banhammer he keeps in the janitor's hall closet, with the intention of baleting its cries for good cause, based on a theory he had developed of the "bad actor" (often misunderstood as similar to the Übertroll of Kitsche [dubious – discuss]).

In one famous rant, Raskolnikov cries out, "Good God! Can it be, can it be, that I shall ritually take a banhammer, that I shall strike the Albatross on the block, split its skull asunder ... that I shall tread in the icky dark slum, break the peace, steal and tremble; hide, all spattered in the crud ... with the banhammer ... Good God, can it be?"

[Source: "The Scream of a Ridiculous Man" by Fyodor Moultonevsky]

Moulton 02:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you suppose Ottava is so angry all the time?[edit]

It's perplexing to me to see such a young person so involved and obviously infuriated with each and every action that doesn't go exactly his way. Dinsdale 08:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I mused on that question here. —Moulton 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Please refer to me only as KillerChihuahua or KC. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I have a problem with that, Tracy. On several public websites, you have published false and defamatory remarks about identifiable people. And, like Paul Mitchell before you, you have made meritless accusations against your fellow editors. You are responsible for what you publish about identifiable people, Tracy, and I am holding you accountable. It is not appropriate for a scholar to publish false and defamatory material while hiding behind a mask of anonymity. Nor is it appropriate for a scholar to alter or redact the signed work of a fellow scholar. I call upon you to undo the considerable damage you and Paul Mitchell did to half a dozen fellow academics, myself included. Moulton 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There have been a number of threads on this talk page regarding the use of names. I would suggest that we open up this discussion for input from more members of the wv community. While this discussion is underway I would like to inform you that it is my interpretation of wv policy that your use of names is in violation of WV:Privacy and until such time as the community clarifies what (if any) exceptions apply to this usage you need to refrain from using any name except KillerChihuahua or KC, as requested above. This is a warning per Wikiversity:Privacy policy. --mikeu talk 16:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Mike, thank you for communicating to me your threat to invoke some imaginable but unspecified "or else" clause in this instance. That's very helpful, as it establishes evidence of the intent to intimidate and coerce. I must admit that I did feel a rare (if fleeting) surge of adrenaline. But Fight or Flight is not my normative practice. My normative practice, as you probably know, is to engage in artful creative problem-solving. —Moulton 16:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The text that my link goes to states: "If you add another person's personal information without permission you will be warned once. If you persist you will be blocked for 24 hours." To clarify: you have not made a compelling argument for why your edits should be exempt from WV:Policy (which I requested here) You have, however, made repeated vague references to academic norms and practice. I find the latter argument spurious, and I have provided numerous citations to support my contention here. I do not find your arguments on this page to be convincing. While this issue is disputed you should refrain from actions that are clearly in violation of policy until such time as the policy is clarified or changed by the community. --mikeu talk 17:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Mike, it is not my practice to compel people to adhere to my way of thinking or my preference by means of threats, warnings, back room deals, or other forms of manipulation. I appreciate that it may at times be your practice and the practice of many participants in these projects to compel others by means of threats, warnings, back room deals, and other forms of manipulation. I have found that I sometimes have to wait decades for people to come around to my way of thinking. There is simply nothing I can do about that. People learn and evolve their thinking at some native rate of developing their beliefs, insights, and practices. I understand that you are compelled to find some way to protect the autocratic bullies of IDCab from being exposed. This is hardly the first time this has happened here. By my count, this is the fourth time in two years, and the pattern is transparently unmistakable. —Moulton 18:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Barry, anyone reading this, who cares what their real names are, already knows what their real names are. Or, if (like me), they don't give a rat's ass, they know where they can find it. You've been littering the web with their names to the extent one might think you were promoting them under the old adage that no publicity is bad publicity. So, since actually re-re-re-re-revealing their names can't be your actual motive (you are many things, stupid is not one of them); that leaves guesses like (a) is trying to get banned or (b) is trying to be annoying to people he wants revenge against or both. If you wish to be banned perhaps you are bored and wish to "teach with drama" and relieve your boredom while feeling oh-so-superior. If you wish revenge and believe letting their bosses know they are misusing their employers' assets, you know more direct ways of accomplishing that - unless you like feel that "revenge is a dish best served cold". As for me I pity these foolish bullies as the more enemies they make the worse it will be for them. - WAS 4.250 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WAS, what is the most reliable way of gaining someone's attention, so as to communicate with them? —Moulton 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of relatively reliable ways. No way is foolproof.
  1. With a summons to appear or answer before a court having jurisdiction, pursuant to the process of that court.
  2. With a payment or binding promise of a payment of cash or other consideration valuable to the person, to the person, for attending to your request.
  3. With an approach to someone whom the person trusts, with a request to convey your concerns or mediate or intervene or otherwise become involved in the communication.
  4. With a baseball bat or other weapon. Deprecated.
  5. Making an enormous fuss in every place that the person might see it, accusing them of crimes and misdemeanors, impeaching their reputation, parodying and ridiculing them, so that anyone searching for them, from now until Doomsday, will see your rants. Deprecated, I think you've tried this one, Moulton, did it work?
  6. How about a polite request that isn't accusatory or blaming? Failing that, I've had success with number three. --Abd 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The "most reliable way of gaining someone's attention, so as to communicate with them" is to appeal to their values and self-interests (motivations: money/power, safety/security, sex/hedonism, ego/self-importance, revenge/anger, and so on). Stick/carrot. Threaten a reduction in something they value (e.g. feeling of self-worth) and/or entice with an opportunity to increase something they value (e.g. number of friends). He had a trained mule who could do all kinds of wonderful tricks. One day somebody asked him: "How do you do it? How do you train the mule to do all these amazing things?" "Well," he answered, "I'll show you."He took a 2-by-4 and whopped him upside the head.The mule was reeling and fell to his knees, and the trainer said: "You just have to get his attention." - WAS 4.250 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WAS, the most reliable way to gain someone's attention is to address them by name. —Moulton 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what kind of attention you want. --Abd 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
We are standing on a street corner and John walks by; whereupon you say "Hey, John!" and I wave five 100 dollar bills in front of John's eyes and say "Could you do me a favor?" Who does John give his attention to? WAS 4.250 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Although there is plenty of corruption in the Wikisphere, I don't imagine there is a all that much bribery going on. The main reward is dopamine lulz — the same reward that keeps people playing Farmville and Mafia Wars day after day. There is little doubt that IDCab and the other cabals are playing the game, at least in part, for the dopamine lulz. But leaving that aside, I still say the most reliable way to gain someone's attention is to call them by name. And you have to admit it worked. The goons of IDCab came running when I called them by name. —Moulton 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it might depend on how pretty I was and the tone of voice and eye contact involved in "hey, John!" Point is, something offered. --Abd 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sailor. Looking for fun? —Montana Mouse 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL. WAS 4.250 20:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Academic norms, scholarly practice, and customary practice[edit]

I have started a survey of the peer-review literature to document the practice of citing names in scholarly publications. I can't seem to find any references that support your contention that this is a widespread and accepted academic practice. Could you provide me with some examples? --mikeu talk 18:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • So as to avoid duplication of effort, please list the ones you already found, such as the Siegenthaler case. Did you come across any on the Naked Short Selling case or religious/ethnic conflicts involving Mormonism, Scientology, Zionism, Creationism, etc? —Moulton 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What? You want want me to do your homework for you? :) I'll add some info on topics as I sort through. [11] But, really, if what you are saying is an "academic norm" it should be obvious and I would not expect it it take much effort to find an example to support your claim. --mikeu talk 19:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's your research you are asking me to peer review. Do you really want to risk me embarrassing you by finding stuff you could have found yourself? Moulton 19:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You have repeatedly stated that this is a common academic practice and I have asked you to provide a citation to back up that claim. I have also provided examples that contradict your claim. It is time for you to produce references. If this really is as widespread a practice as you claim it should have turned up in the first few papers that I read. --mikeu talk 19:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, let's get the general background of the culture of Wikipedia.

In The Hive, published in the September 2006 issue of The Atlantic, Marshall Poe gives a compelling account of the history of Wikipedia, including its legendary reputation for autocratic management and systemic corruption. See also the companion interview Common Knowledge, in which Poe further elaborates on the strange reality of dealing with anonymous autocrats in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's own article on the Siegenthalar biography story reveals the real name of the author who wrote the bogus entries. That's your most prominent example of disclosing the real name of an editor who put false information into a biography, crediting Daniel Brandt with being the first to make the identification and publish it. Incidentally, Brandt beat me by about three hours in tracing the IP to Rush Delivery.

Next up is the story of Essjay whose identity was tipped off when he joined the staff of Wikia. Wikipedia editors noticed that his credentials on Wikia didn't match his credentials on Wikipedia. It's a complicated story, but it was Wikipedians who exposed him as a fraud. Note that the WP article is flush with references.

Then there is David "Shankbone" Miller. Note that the top hit for revealing his real name is this WP userspace subpage by a WP editor in good standing.

I realize, Mike, that you want scholarly articles, and I can drill down further, but right off the bat we have that the so-called Privacy Policy (over which this issue arose in the first place) is bollocks, since WP itself hosts both mainspace articles and userspace articles that disclose real names of notorious Wikipedians who betrayed the trust of the community.

Moulton 20:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See also this WP talk page thread started by JoshuaZ, in which w:User:Dougweller suggests that "it would be better if User:Moulton registers an account here for Barry Kort, and the Moulton and Caprice pages point to Kort." Mike is that not evidence that not only is the Privacy Policy bollocks here, it's common practice on WP to refer to editors by their real name. —Moulton 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As the topic header of this thread states I was very specifically inquiring about academic norms and practices. It is my opinion that your use of names is contrary to the usage that I see in the peer review literature. On many occasions you have stated that this is a common academic practice and I have asked for scholarly citations to support your claims. The local Privacy Policy is another issue. My interpretation is that your edits are clearly in violation of our policy, but that is a separate issue from academic norms. As to the use of real names on wp, would you like me to post a note there commenting on that? --mikeu talk 14:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two sets of customs to consider. One is the traditional custom in academia and the other is the custom established over the years in WMF-sponsored projects. We need to rationalize and harmonize these customs. It's going to be problematic if we have multiple standards that are in conflict with each other. I appreciate that your interest is narrower than mine, but it's important that we devise practices that are consistent with both academic practices outside of WV and customary practices within WMF-sponsored projects. —Moulton 15:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"devise practices that are consistent with both academic practices outside of WV and customary practices within WMF-sponsored projects"? Easy. Whatever is self-serving and a rationalisation can be invented for. If you don't think meat space is every bit as dog eat dog as virtual space then I've got this World of Warcraft Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you ... - WAS 4.250 18:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to get a dog's attention, you call the dog by her real name. —Moulton 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If you try to get a dog's attention by the means used by Moulton, the dog will bite you. If you know the dog, the dog may or may not respond to the name. It depends on the dog's conditioning. It's more effective if the name has often been accompanied by a dog treat. And if you don't know the dog, you can still hold out a dog treat and get a dog's attention. Careful! I don't have a dog, but my kids' mothers have two. One of them is quite large, both of them appear ferocious and dangerous to anyone who doesn't know them. They'll still knock you over with their enthusiasm. In fact, they are both lushes, want nothing more than to lie down and be rubbed. And fed, of course. But woe to a person who tried to hurt one of my kids. --Abd 19:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediated discussion regarding past events between you and KillerChihuahua[edit]

Hiya Moulton,

I set up a page here so that perhaps you two can resolve at least the personal aspects of this dispute, since it seems they're not going to go away. The moderation instructions are at the top, I'll mostly just be watching unless there appears to be a logjam or mis-communication. --SB_Johnny talk 17:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Do you have a specific word limit? —Moulton 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Try to keep the questions down to a couple lines, I suppose. Maybe not too many to start with would help ease the path as well. --SB_Johnny talk 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. I simply began by asking her if she has taken the time to review my presentation to her here and is prepared to respond to it at this time. —Moulton 17:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You're missing the point about the brief questions thing. Linking to a long external page is pretty much the same as a long question. --SB_Johnny talk 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I need to determine what she already knows about, so I know what questions to ask next. I have disturbing evidence that she is not even aware of the issues. It's like she shot first and never even bothered to ask questions later. —Moulton 17:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, SBJ. Moulton doesn't understand how being an administrator on a wiki works. You make ad-hoc judgments. If they are okay, in theory, they stand. If not, again in theory, they are reversed. Admins don't have time, usually, to do deep research, they act upon appearances, the surface. I was blocked on WP by Iridescent based on such a judgment. So what? It did not stand because the basis wasn't solid, the block was not necessary. As part of that, I had a dispute with Jehochman. I ran a self-RfC and got some opinion that my behavior had not been as alleged by Jehochman. Then I approached J. and asked him to look at it. He refused, he didn't have time. Okay, I wrote, is there someone you'd trust to review this, to mediate between us.

This was classic, standard, w:WP:DR procedure, more often ignored than followed.

Jehochman recognized what I was doing and wrote "Carcharoth." Yes! So we went to Carcharoth Talk and asked this later-arbitrator to intervene. Carcharoth wrote, "busy, in two weeks." So we waited. In two weeks, we pinged Carcharoth, and the answer was "Can't you guys work this out yourselves?" I suspect that C. is a woman and this was a sophisticated challenge to male ego.

Anyway, we did work it out, in about two edits. J apologized for his comments without admitting blame, and I acknowledged that his comments had been made in good faith (i.e., my position was that he was wrong, not Bad.) And we became friends, he's still the only Wikipedian that I've met specially in person, at his invitation. (I went to a New York Wikiconference, where I met Jimbo, etc.)

It can be done. But not when you are screaming and yelling "Abuse!" "Censorship" "Corruption" etc. Later, I tried negotiation like this with JzG and WMC. Brick walls. And their friends were brick walls. So ... ArbComm. They made their choices. --Abd 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Why are you complaining to me about corruption on WP? Go tell your shaggy sob story to some friendly lap dog. —Moulton 23:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
When I describe what happened at WP, why do you characterize it as a "complaint"? Most of what I wrote above was about success on WP. And then I mentioned brick walls, briefly, and how being brick walls led to downfall. Encounter any brick walls on Wikipedia, Moulton? You are a fat one to be talking about "shaggy sob stories"! I didn't mention "corruption" on Wikipedia. I mentioned you "screaming and yelling 'corruption' here. You've been railing and ranting about Wikipedia abuse and corruption for years! Methinks that if you see your reflection in a mirror, you smash it in anger. --Abd 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that your hypothesis? —Moulton 07:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Any observation involves some level of hypothesis. I look out the window. The sun is shining. My hypothesis, to state these observations, is that I'm not dreaming and I can tell the difference between sunshine and other phenomena. So, sure, my hypothesis, in theory. In practice, my observation. Look at the above. You plainly didn't understand what was written, or you are deliberately responding to other than what was written. Alternate hypotheses. Sure. But Occam's Razor, Barry. You lost it, somewhere along the way. --Abd 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your question on Wikipedia[edit]

[12] Jed did answer, but may not have gotten the lacuna underneath the question. The 100 W is the heat production during that period, of course, estimated by how much heavy water was anomalously evaporated. The calculation is in Mizuno's book, which I have. This was expensive! Energy rate may be stated as watts, heat being equivalent with electrical power (if the power is entirely converted to heat).

You should realize that the heat after death phenomenon does not occur with hydrogen controls, in P-F type experiments. --Abd 19:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Kirk filled me on the real story. —Moulton 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Believe every word he says, that way you will much more rapidly be faced with the "real story." I have extensive interaction with Kirk, I know his approach and his arguments, though certainly not all of them. He's quite creative. He cares not one bit about noticing that the predictions of his theories don't match experiment. Hey, Moulton, birds of a feather. --Abd 17:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There was no doubt, since all he said was that I could find the discussion about it from 2002 in Sci.Physics.Fusion. And indeed it was exactly where he said it was. —Moulton 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Kirk would, I believe, ascribe heat after death to recombination. Now, for extra credit, can you shoot this full of holes? Do you need prompting with some questions? --Abd 02:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Douglas Morrison gave a plausible theory for heat after death, which is the same theory I had independently come up with before I learned about Morrison's comment. —Moulton 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Cigarette lighter effect, right? Now, what does that require? Recombination isn't a brilliant idea, it's about the first thing that any chemist would think of, it is the obvious energy source to consider. So why would all these chemists somehow overlook this? But a physicist thinks of it and imagines this a cogent hypothesis? Really, Moulton, you aren't trying to practice science, you never seem to try to refute theories that you like. Only theories you don't like. --Abd 03:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's what Morrison called it, because that was evidently one of the first commercial applications of the phenomenon. Ed Storms asserted (and Jed Rothwell parroted) the incorrect view that molecular hydrogen dissolved in the Palladium. But Oriani, for example, invoked Sievert's Law to confirm the theory that it was not molecular hydroden but atomic hydrogen that was dissolved in the Pd lattice. That meant that a substantial amount of chemical energy was stored in the lattice, which would be recovered as heat of formation of hydrogen gas as the atomic hydrogen bled out of the lattice after the Faradaic current or pneumatic pressure was removed. Dieter Britz also independently confirmed that model. I am at a loss to understand how Ed Storms would adopt and propagate the incorrect theory that it was molecular hydrogen dissolved in the Pd lattice. —Moulton 03:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What must be present for the cigarette lighter effect? What factors would limit heat produced by this effect, if it produces any heat at all?
  • As is all too common, you refer to a discussion without citing it. That hydrogen/deuterium exist in dissociated form in the lattice is common knowledge. Technically, it's not pure dissociation, as in a plasma. The electrons are present, but shared with the lattice. I'll look in two places, a discussion you cited on w:Talk:Cold fusion and the response to Morrison.
  • However, I've discussed the possible presence of the molecular form in palladium with Hagelstein. That it does not exist is a simplification; rather the issue would be how much exists (very little!), and under what conditions. Perhaps within lattice defects, or at or very near the surface. It's an important issue because it would only take a tiny occurrence of double-molecular confinement to cause TSC fusion to Be-8. The level would be so low that it would probably not be measurable by any means; what might be measurable would be the presence of single molecules. But this is irrelevant to the cigarette lighter effect, which would be a gross, bulk effect. --Abd 14:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
All it takes (for the "cigarette lighter" effect) is to have the Pd loaded with some amount of atomic (metallic) H or D, either via a Faradaic current in an electrolytic cell, or by pneumatic pressure in a gas loaded cell. The amount of heat produced, after the loading force is removed, is a stoichiometric function of the amount of atomic H or D loaded into the lattice. To get gaseous H2 or D2 in the lattice, you have to fracture the lattice structure, since molecular H2 or D2 takes up more volume than is available in the crystal lattice for just an ionized proton or deuteron. —Moulton 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again you don't cite the source for your claims above about the persons involved.
  • You missed a crucial ingredient in the cigarette lighter effect. What is it? It appears you do not understand the effect. See discussion between Morrison where Morrison explains the effect. You have not correctly described it. Morrison, himself, erred in describing it, as well, but you compounded the error. PdD will not produce this effect on its own. The effect does not result simply from spontaneous deloading of the palladium. As has been pointed out to you, that deloading is an endothermic process overall and in itself. (This is an error Morrison made. Perhaps we should forgive him. He's not a chemist.) The cigarette lighter, the original invention described by Morrison, relies upon something else. What is it?
  • Yes, atomic hydrogen was involved. But not in the way you think. --Abd 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you care what I think? —Moulton 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You have stated that you are interested in learning. Here, you obviously have a lot to learn. So ... I'm creating learning opportunities. You can reject them if you like, but don't then blame everyone else for rejecting the "opportunities" you provide. My statement stands. Atomic hydrogen is involved in the cigarette lighter effect, but the involvement is not of the nature you describe. The heat in the CL effect does not come from recombination of atomic hydrogen to D2, that's an endothermic reaction. What does it come from? Hey, Barry, you've written about sophomore AC analysis. How about freshman chemistry?
By the way, since I can be as offensive as I like, here, can you guess who my professor was for freshman chemistry? --Abd 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, please respect that I have my own learning priorities. Your priorities do not happen to jibe with mine. Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you would be less disappointed going forward if you employed more reliable models of how I organize my learning agenda. —Moulton 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disappointed. You appear to have a "learning agenda" that consists of being as obnoxious as possible and seeing how people react. I don't really care what your learning agenda is, I care about how you treat people, because what you do is, overall, disruptive of learning, it does not foster it, ordinarily. Under confined conditions, it may be useful. Unconfined, it's highly disruptive and damaging, and you'd be excluded from any true academic institution if you behaved this way.
Now, as to the comment in your edit summary, Nor have I reviewed your college transcripts. You know that I sat in the original Feynman Lectures, which puts my freshman and sophomore years at Cal Tech at 1961-62 and 1962-1963. So, I enjoyed a famous physicist for freshman physics. Why do you think I'd mention chemistry? Because the chemistry professor wasn't notable? Come on, hazard a guess! Or look it up, you might be able to find who taught freshman chemistry in 1961-62. --Abd 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Now, Moulton, that paper cited by Morrison clearly covers two major assertions of source of artifact you have made: misting and input power error. Thus these objections of yours are not new, in fact, those issues were raised in 1993. It would have been trivial to confirm both of these prosaic sources of alleged anomalous energy. Fleischmann, however, conclusively rebuts both objections, and there are many other experimental reports that do the same. On w:Talk:Cold fusion you stated as fact things which are not true. You did not source them. To state, in that context, as fact, something for which you have no evidence is totally outside of academic and scientific protocols. Again, you are not functioning as a scientist, at all. You are just arguing to attempt to prove that you are right, not to learn, you continue way beyond the point of possible learning.
  • On AC "burst noise," this killer argument was raised. How do you plan to account for the fact that the authors report being unable to repeat their excess heat measurements using the exact same electrode and setup? Or the countless reports of irreproducibility of the experiments. Wouldn't your model necessitate that "AC burst noise" would result in "excess heat" every time the experiment was done by the experimenter? Wouldn't excess heat be observed at high current density regardless of the electrode used?
  • In your input power theories, you completely neglect contrary experimental evidence, including controls which would produce the same "bubble noise" effect. (i.e., Pt cathode with deuterium; hydrogen controls would also produce bubble noise, just at a possibly different level, it would not differ by more than a factor of two, whereas excess heat results between deuterium and hydrogen, in active cells, are drastically different, orders of magnitude different. When I have raised the issue -- many times -- you have ignored it, returning to repeating mantras like "carbon microphone, if they were right telephones would not work."
  • Your "educational project" seems to consist of demonstrating that it is possible to argue forever, as long as one doesn't care about being preposterous. I suppose we can learn something from that. --Abd 16:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Feel free to argue with yourself as long as you like. I exited the Argument Culture some years ago. I no longer consider it to be the kind of culture I care to dwell in. —Moulton 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You fool yourself if you believe you "exited the Argument Culture." That's not an argument, it's an obvious observation. Stuff it in a dark place if you like. Or consider it. Your choice. --Abd 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I relieve you of all responsibility for maintaining my belief system, and absolve you of all blame in the event that your belief, in the fullness of time, proves to be the more accurate one. —Moulton 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Truly. Now all that remains is to stop you from misleading others. --Abd 18:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Super. Now will you please go to Meta and do your worst. The audience is getting bored already. —Moulton 18:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No. If I go, it will be to do my best. --Abd 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, back to the topic of this section. I asked about the cigarette lighter effect. You wrote, Moulton:

All it takes (for the "cigarette lighter" effect) is to have the Pd loaded with some amount of atomic (metallic) H or D, either via a Faradaic current in an electrolytic cell, or by pneumatic pressure in a gas loaded cell. The amount of heat produced, after the loading force is removed, is a stoichiometric function of the amount of atomic H or D loaded into the lattice. To get gaseous H2 or D2 in the lattice, you have to fracture the lattice structure, since molecular H2 or D2 takes up more volume than is available in the crystal lattice for just an ionized proton or deuteron.Moulton 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not "all that is needed." A crucial and necessary element has been left out. Barry, you don't know what you are talking about, you are constantly out on a limb, pretending to know what you don't know. You side with Morrison on an obvious error (though it's not crucial to his argument). And you miss his actual argument by focusing on his error.

The crucial element is oxygen. The cigarette lighter effect is the catalytic combustion of hydrogen from palladium hydride. The atomic hydrogen that is present in the lattice escapes by a process similar to evaporation. That process actually cools the surface of the palladium, but atomic hydrogen is highly reactive and thus immediately combines with atmospheric oxygen, which releases the (greater) heat of combustion. The cigarette lighter effect requires the presence of oxygen, which is consumed. The cathode is heavily loaded with deuterium, and only a tiny amount of oxygen, by comparison, is present in the cell. In a heat after death (HAD) cell, oxygen evolution has stopped along with that of deuterium. There will be some oxygen present, this will rapidly be combined with escaping deuterium at the surface of the cathode. The oxygen in the cell is thus replaced by water vapor. If there is any influx of atmospheric oxygen, it will bring with it nitrogen and the concentration of oxygen in the cell will be more and more reduced. At some point the evaporation of deuterium will exceed the inflow, if there is any inflow at all, and there could be, at that point, no more combustion.

Further, it's been shown, if all the deuterium in the cell were to be oxidized, it would not be sufficient to explain the observed HAD, not even close. But that's a more complex issue.

You have not understood the loading of palladium hydride or deuteride. There is little or no "gaseous" deuterium or hydrogen in palladium deuteride or hydride. Palladium is hungry for hydrogen or deuterium, it spontaneously loads, releasing heat as it does. You can see this in the heat profile for gas-loading experiments. They evacuate the cell, which contains, say, nanoparticle palladium (very high surface area). They then introduce deuterium gas (or hydrogen in controls). As the gas is introduced, the pressure does not rise, but temperature rises rapidly, from the heat of formation of palladium deuteride. At some point the palladium is loaded to the natural level for the pressure and pressure starts to rise. So a little extra deuterium is loaded from the pressure. Most of of it was just lapped up by a very happy palladium puppy.

What's reported from gas-loading is that with hydrogen, the cell settles rapidly to ambient temperature. With dueterium, the cell maintains elevated temperature for a very long time. Arata stopped his experiments at 3000 minutes. Steady heat, not declining visibly on the graph, even at 3000 minutes. --Abd 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • In the absence of Oxygen, the atomic hydrogen bleeding out of the lattice combines with its own species to form molecular H2 gas (plus the heat of formation of H2 from 2H). The resultant H2 gas is then available for further reaction, such as combustion, which produces liquid water and even more heat. —Caprice 05:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Moulton, you aren't understanding the situation. Yes, if the atomic hydrogen leaks out and self-combines, that will release heat, but this is less heat than is absorbed by the evaporation, which is what the leaking amounts to. Please get this, it's very clear. When you add D2 to palladium, heat is released. Obviously, it takes energy to split the D2, but the heat of formation of palladium deuteride is greater. When the deuterium ions escape, as they will from thermal motion, only the more energetic of them escape. Thus the material cools. This is the standard reason why evaporation cools, right? (there is also the love of the palladium matrix for them electrons.... that ardor cools when the deuterium leaves. The reverse of heat of formation.)
The net effect of absorption is the release of heat. The net effect of evaporation with recombination, which is the reverse reaction, is the absorption of heat, not the release of heat. Morrison erred on this, thinking that heat was released because of the relaxation of the palladium matrix. That imagines that the deuterium is "squeezed" in there, so energy is released when it "squirts" out. He wasn't a chemist! Nor are, obviously, you. I don't think Morrison's rebuttal was published under peer review. It would have been embarrassing. Not his finest day.
The cigarette lighter effect exists because what exits the lattice is atomic hydrogen, a highly reactive species. This will combine with hydrogen to form H2 or with oxygen to form H2O. Normally, H2 does not spontaneously combust, energy is required to first split the hydrogen, allowing it to react with oxygen. That's why it takes a spark to ignite hydrogen gas. Or the gas we use for cooking, same problem.
Summary: the release of deuterium from the palladium does not release heat when the deuterium recombines with itself, which it will do if no oxygen is present. The heat of self-recombination is less than the heat absorbed by evaporation. This is basic. If it were not true, then the formation of palladium deuteride would not be an exothermic process, and would not proceed by itself, absent major pressure.
However, the heat of recombination, with oxygen, to water is greater. Thus if oxygen is present, the cigarette lighter effect can operate. In the real cigarette lighter, then, recombination with atmospheric oxygen caused heating of the surface, causing increased release of deuterium (increased evaporation at higher temperature, right?). This requires the presence of oxygen. But very little oxygen is present in the CF cell, and whatever recombination takes place at the cathode surface will rapidly exhaust any residual oxygen.
Whatever hydrogen recombines with itself becomes unavailable for combination with oxygen, except at the surface of the cathode. What happens at the surface? Well, the hydrogen will enter the cathode, dissociating into atomic hydrogen, making some atomic hydrogen available to oxygen at the surface. This is how palladium catalysts work. That dissociation is an exothermic reaction, overall, or it could not occur. --Abd 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing my user sub pages[edit]

Please do not edit my user sub pages with out permission. Please really do not edit things that are transcripts. By editing the text of the transcript, you changed the integrity of it. The edits you made were not part of the original, and by making those additions to a transcript, you implied they were. --LauraHale 12:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The only reason those references were not in the original was because IRC lacks the affordance of linking to references in real time. Without those references, my remarks lack their intended educational value. I would be grateful if you would restore the references that explain what my remarks refer to. —Moulton 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose that. The participants in the IRC did not see those references, if I'm correct. If this IRC log is used somewhere, Moulton might possibly add references to his comments on it. (If I'm wrong and the references were there for the original participants to see and follow, then, of course, they should be in the log. But I think that Moulton is trying to explain what he wrote, after the fact, which is offensive because the function of the log is to show the actual conversation. Not what was intended or could be explained about it, which would lead to endless regression.) --Abd 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I appreciate that you and Darklama and a few others here strongly oppose my practice of introducing educational content into Wikiversity, but I intended to transform that dispute into a teachable moment by introjecting commentary that expressly referred to relevant academic models describing the dynamics of their dispute. I would be grateful if you and Darklama would discontinue the abhorrent practice of systematically denying others the opportunity to learn. —Moulton 03:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Introjecting commentary" into evidence is highly offensive. You may create opportunities to learn other ways. However, much more, it seems to me, you are not creating opportunities to learn, except in the way that any event at all creates opportunities, you are, ratAll it takes is to have the Pd loaded with some amount of H or D, either via a Faradaic current in an electrolytic cell, or by pneumatic pressure in a gas loaded cell.her, creating opportunities for people to be offended, to fight, to seek your ban, and not to interact peacefully in educational pursuits. Basically, you are dragging down the wiki, and you are highly resistant to "learning" to do otherwise. --Abd 14:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to be as offended as you like at my customary practice of introducing educational references and footnotes into my own commentary, so that people who wish to understand me will apprehend what I am referring to when I use vocabulary terms they may not be familiar with. —Moulton 14:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You fail to acknowledge the issue here, your editing of evidence provided by other people. The evidence is about behavior, not about your "educational topics." If you wish to add comments to the transcript, you may presumably create your own copy in your own user space, and add your comments to it. You may cite this from the Talk page attached to the evidence page. I'm fully aware that in the past, your own evidence and testimony was altered. That was utterly improper, except as necessary to remove true privacy violations. I supported disallowing such changes, except as explicitly acknowledged so that the original would readily be seen and read. The issue has nothing to do with me being offended personally. When I state that your practice is offensive, it is the same as stating that any distortion of evidence by alteration of it. It's evidence-tampering, and to be legitimate, there must be strong independent cause. Your desire to explain yourself is insufficient.
My adding the references now, as you did, you imply that those additions were present originally. That, then, places the comments of others -- and yourself -- in a different context than the true original, thus leading people to possibly make incorrect conclusions regarding how people reacted.
Barry, your resistance to this demonstrates how you have no clue as to real academic or organizational practice. You are pretending to be a scholar and a scientist. You may have been one at one time. You lost it, somewhere, you became a crank pursuing old grudges. Wake up, Barry, it's the remainder of your life that you are trashing. --Abd 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to be as obnoxious as you like. —Moulton 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, permission noted, for whatever that's worth, which isn't much. --Abd 16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

New seminar: "How to be a Funkadoodle"[edit]

Here is a learning resource for "How to be a Funkadoodle".

Scholarly learning activity at WIkiversity.

Suffering Psychodrama[edit]

Note: This version of Laura's IRC log has been edited to insert references to the vocabulary terms in Moulton's trenchant commentary.

[11:23] * Now talking in #wikiversity-en
[11:23] * Topic is 'Welcome to the English Wikiversity IRC channel: | For assistance ask your question and WAIT for an answer or ask at | This channel is logged | Discuss | CVN channel at #cvn-wv-en'
[11:23] * Set by draicone!~draicone@wikimedia/Draicone on Sat Nov 27 03:39:12
[freenode-info] if you're at a conference and other people are having trouble connecting, please mention it to staff:
[11:23] -ChanServ-
[##australia] Welcome to ##australia!
[11:36] * Quits: SB_Johnny ( (Quit: SB_Johnny)
[11:49] * Joins: JWSchmidt (
[11:49] * Quits: JWSchmidt ( (Changing host)
[11:49] * Joins: JWSchmidt (~JWSurf@wikia/JWSchmidt)
[14:20] * Joins: Moulton1 (
[14:23] * Quits: Moulton ( (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[14:23] * Moulton1 is now known as Moulton
[14:30] * Joins: Ottava (~no@
[14:30] <Ottava> Laura, way to lie about me
[14:31] <Ottava> Id love to know the 3 people here who supposedly helped you
[14:31] <Ottava> Oh yeah, I've "never used my real name" and "never posted proof of credentials" when everyone here has seen them
[14:33] <Moulton> So, who is Dinsdale?
[14:33] <Ottava> Dinsdale is most likely KBlott
[14:33] <Ottava> After his attacks on Durova, CUs started investigating
[14:33] <Ottava> MuZemike hasn't been about to compare data
[14:33] <Ottava> so I havent had a confirmation yet
[14:34] <Ottava> KBlott is the only one familiar with the obscure pages on Wikiversity and matters that ended 3 years ago, such as !!
[14:34] <JWSchmidt> hi Ottava
[14:34] <Ottava> JWSchmidt, were you one of the three people that supposedly helped Laura form something that basically lies about me?
[14:34] <Ottava> Hell, my real name account posted in the Deletion discussion about edits regarding the account
[14:35] <Ottava> everyone here participated in it
[14:35] <JWSchmidt> I had nothing to do with this "Community Review"
[14:35] <Ottava> Well, she claims 3 people from IRC did
[14:35] <Ottava> Everyone here was involved in the deletion discussion of my edits
[14:35] <JWSchmidt> I noticed that I made some comments in an IRC log that she posted
[14:36] <Ottava> so they also saw my academic transcript verifying my multple masters and my dissertation for my phd
[14:37] <Ottava> I do love how she claims I chased away people yet I rarely post, and how I am awful in chat yet I am rarely in chat
[14:37] <Ottava> or how there is "new" material which is all from 9 months ago
[14:38] <JWSchmidt> Ottava: you are on the "shit list" have a target painted on you
[14:38] <Ottava> No, I am on Jtneill's revenge list
[14:38] <Ottava> as Laura is one of his friends from school
[14:38] <Ottava> I love this one
[14:39] <Ottava> Ottava threatened Stanistani with loss of cooperation: " I also find it strange how you can defend a user who has proven to stalk multiple users at Wikiversity irl and do such over a 3 year period. If you honestly feel that such behavior is acceptable, then you can be certain that I could never work with you,"
[14:39] <Ottava> Oh no, heaven forbid me saying tha I can't work with someone who doesn't make me comfortable!
[14:39] <Ottava> what a "threat"
[14:39] <LauraHale> I've talked to JTNeil three times.
[14:39] <Ottava> Stop with the lies, Laura
[14:39] <Ottava> you threw a temper tantrum because of what I said about Jtneill
[14:39] <LauraHale> I'd argue that you and I are better friends Ottava than JTNeil and I are.
[14:39] <LauraHale> Nope.
[14:40] <Ottava> all the bullshit started when you went crazy over me confronting him over abuse
[14:40] <Ottava> stop the bullshit
[14:40] <Ottava> I did -nothing- to you
[14:40] <Ottava> and yet you lie about me
[14:40] <Ottava> There is a warm spot in hell for those like you
[14:41] <LauraHale> Ottava: I can tell you honestly, I've met JTneill three times. The first was when he helped print posted for RCC Canberra 2010. The second time was at RCC 2011. The third time was this week when I asked him to find a local Wikipedian to present with me at Wiki Sport Academy.
[14:41] <Ottava> and Laura, you are violating our policies by posting logs, which is an actual rule violation unlike anything you claim of me
[14:41] <LauraHale> Ottava: I'm going to post this log.
[14:41] <Ottava> and yes, I have brought far more people to Wikiversity than you have
[14:41] <Ottava> go ahead, it will be OS'd by Stewards
[14:41] <LauraHale> To support my claim of harrassment and of making unfounded allegations against me.
[14:41] <Ottava> and if you keep it up, they can emergency block you
[14:41] <LauraHale> Ottava: This is not meant as a personal thing.
[14:42] <Ottava> No, it is personal, you are a cry baby with a vendetta
[14:42] <Ottava> you have nothing real
[14:42] <LauraHale> Ottava: If they emergency block me, I will fully accept it and I won't protest it.
[14:42] <Ottava> so you make up bullshit to smear people
[14:42] <Ottava> you ae a disgrace
[14:42] <Ottava> you are a whiney liar unable to cope with reality
[14:42] <Ottava> Oh, I chase people away because I do nothing but keep to my own work and welcome people?
[14:42] <Ottava> Where do you get such nonsense from?
[14:43] <Ottava> Did you get dropped on your head?
[14:43] <LauraHale> Ottava: And I realize that posting that, it could be seen as a personal attack on you. It wasn't intended to be that. Rather, it was intended to be a conversation about the value of your contributions versus expanding participation on Wikiversity.
[14:43] <Ottava> Laura, every single sentence you wrote contains lies
[14:43] <Ottava> things you -know- are lies
[14:43] <LauraHale> Ottava: Can you tell me who will be blocking me? I'm not really familiar with how these things work.
[14:43] <Ottava> If a steward has to repeatedly OS content then they block
[14:44] <Moulton> People! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
[14:44] <LauraHale> Ottava: I had my site blacklisted from Wikipedia. I didn't protest that. So when I say I would accept whatever the community consensus was in terms of consequences for my posting that, I have evidence of that in relation to my involvement with WMF.
[14:44] <LauraHale> Ottava: What steward would do that?
[14:44] <Ottava> It is standard protocol
[14:44] <LauraHale> Ottava: Standard protocol for what?
[14:44] <Ottava> OS deals with privacy related matters, which includes chat logs and emails
[14:45] <Moulton> Eastern Standard Protocol.
[14:45] <Ottava> How can you say you teach about wikis to people and don't know these things?
[14:45] <Moulton> They adopted it in Maryland about 75 years ago.
[14:45] <LauraHale> Ottava: Please file that emergency request.
[14:45] <LauraHale> Ottava: WMF =/= Wikis.
[14:45] <Ottava> I don't tneed to "file" anything
[14:45] <Ottava> You proport to teach about Wikiversity, which is a wiki and WMF
[14:45] <LauraHale> Ottava: So confused.
[14:46] <LauraHale> Ottava: I'm not teaching much about Wikiversity. I don't know where you get the idea that I am teaching a lot about Wikiversity.
[14:46] <Moulton> Confusion is the first step toward Enlightenment.
[14:46] <Ottava> You said it the other day
[14:46] <LauraHale> Ottava: Prove it as I didn't.
[14:46] <LauraHale> The onus is on you to prove the affirmative.
[14:47] <Ottava> Okay, Laura, so what was your meetup the other day where you said you gave a presentation on Wikiversity?
[14:47] <Ottava> and linked to videos about it?
[14:47] <Ottava> and went on and on about how you were promoting Wikiversity?
[14:47] <Moulton> Welcome to Level 3 Skandalon.
[14:48] <LauraHale> Ottava: I haven't given any presentation on Wikiversity.
[14:48] <Ottava> Are you saying you don't promote wikiversity? That all of your claims about don't actually deal with us? Are you really going to claim that you don't really do anything for Wikiversity?
[14:48] <LauraHale> Ottava: Please provide evidence that I have.
[14:48] <Ottava> If so, then you undermine all of your claims
[14:48] <Ottava> two options, neither make you look good
[14:48] <LauraHale> Ottava: Wikiversity =/= All Wikis Everywhere.
[14:48] <Ottava> You claim to want to work with Wikiversity yet you do nothing
[14:48] <Ottava> odd
[14:49] <Moulton> Welcome to the Wikiversity Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd.
[14:49] <Ottava> you attack those who put in work, who actually recruit
[14:49] <Ottava> and then make up claims about not being able to get people
[14:49] <LauraHale> Ottava: You can support yourself by stopping with the harassment of me. you can support yourself by proving that I am a liar. you can help yourself by proving I am BFFs with JTNeill.
[14:49] <Ottava> when, as you revealed, you never have tried to get anyone
[14:49] <Ottava> Harassment of you? You harassed me
[14:49] <LauraHale> Moulton: That's pretty much it.
[14:49] <Moulton> Tonight's sketch features Narcissistic Wounding.
[14:49] <Ottava> I never respond to you on Wiki
[14:49] <Ottava> I don't follow you
[14:49] <LauraHale> Ottava: you're in here attacking me.
[14:49] <Ottava> I ignore you
[14:49] <Ottava> that is not the same with you
[14:49] <Ottava> No, I am defending my reputation against your libel
[14:49] <Ottava> Your lies
[14:49] <LauraHale> Ottava: Yet you attack me here.
[14:50] <LauraHale> Ottava: And yet you lie about me too.
[14:50] <LauraHale> And libel is a legal term.
[14:50] <Ottava> Attacking you for attacking me isn't an attack
[14:50] <Ottava> It is a response
[14:50] <Ottava> you can't beat someone up and if they punch you claim that you are defending yourself!
[14:50] <Moulton> Folks, it's a knock-down, drag-out Ego-Bruiser here.
[14:50] <LauraHale> Ottava: That is your view on it.
[14:50] <Ottava> It is as if you are disconnected from all logic and sanity
[14:50] <Moulton> The haphazard theories of mind are flying fast and thick.
[14:51] <LauraHale> Ottava: As this is your defense of yourself to my accusations, will you agree again that these logs are public?
[14:51] <Ottava> No, stop with the harassing of others
[14:51] <Ottava> We have rules
[14:51] <Ottava> try to follow them sometime
[14:51] <Moulton> Ottava just pinned Laura with page F.60 of DSM-IV! Will she rip that page out and stuff it in his mouth?
[14:51] <Moulton> Ottava goes for the Rules == Chaos Gambit.
[14:52] <Moulton> Poincaré cheers.
[14:52] <Moulton> Edward Lorenz yawns.
[14:52] <Moulton> Benoit Mandelbrot turns over in his grave.
[14:52] <LauraHale> Ottava: I shall post anyway. If I get banned, so be it. I am willing to suffer that consequence.
[14:52] <Moulton> Suffering!
[14:52] <Ottava> Laura, you know our rules yet do it any way to harass
[14:52] <Ottava> That is a serious problem
[14:53] <Moulton> There it is folks. We have Empathy. We have Mutual Suffering.
[14:53] <Moulton> Will they feel each others pain?
[14:53] <LauraHale> Ottava: I will suffer the consequences. As you called me a liar and made other statements about me that I've denied and that you refuse to prove affirmatives for, I'm going to ignore you.
[14:53] <Moulton> Will the suffering escalate or subside? The crowd is on the edge of their seats here in Schadenfreude Theatre.
[14:53] <Ottava> Laura, you lied about me
[14:54] <LauraHale> [11:23] * Topic is 'Welcome to the English Wikiversity IRC channel: | For assistance ask your question and WAIT for an answer or ask at | This channel is logged
[14:54] <Ottava> You lied about getting help from the chat because everyone here knows the facts about me which directly contradict 60% of your claims
[14:54] <Ottava> and the topic isnt Wikiversity
[14:54] <Ottava> IRC does not override Wikiversity policy
[14:54] <Ottava> nor is IRC Wikiversity
[14:55] <Moulton> Will I get residuals for narrating the blow by blow of this ego-bruising sketch on Wounding?
[14:55] <Moulton> Folks, be sure to tune in next week for "The Final Absolution" from the Rinse Cycle of the Ring of the Neener Bomb.
[14:56] <Moulton> We will be premiering "The Riot of the Mockeries."
[14:56] <Ottava> Like look at some of the nonsense that you say is evidence of me violating policy: "The following is an extract from a February 9, 2011 chat where he implies people are out to get him:"
[14:56] <Ottava> I pointed out Abd was attacking everyone
[14:56] <Ottava> he did attack everyone and was desysopped for it
[14:57] <Ottava> Yet you post it as if me pointing it out is some kind of awful problem
[14:57] <Moulton> Well, yeah, but he's gotta get his Dopamine Lulz somehow, doesn't he?
[14:57] <Ottava> That is just lunacy
[14:57] <Moulton> Lunatic Social Drama! Victor Turner would be so proud.
[14:58] <Moulton> Youse Guise were mahvelous. Simply mahvelous.
[14:59] <Moulton> Folks, let's hear it for our intrepid Thespians!
[14:59] <Moulton> What a performance!
[14:59] <Moulton> The crowd is swooning.
[15:00] <Moulton> On the way out, please consider purchasing a copy of Rene Girard's Literary Analysis of tonight's Scapegoat Psychodrama.
[15:03] <Moulton> Now join us in singing our Hymn for Schadenfreude Theater, A Dueteronomic Descant, "Slouching to the Darker Side."

Many thanks to Ottava and Laura for their marvelous performance in the above Psychodrama Sketch on Narcissistic Wounding in Wikiversity's Post-Modern Theatre of the Absurd. Moulton 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning again[edit]

Moulton, your repeated replacement of massive material on my Talk page is not acceptable. I read the material the first time you put it there, put the best construction on it, and thanked you for the heads up. You replaced it. I removed it, this time with a kind of warning. You replaced it again as IP. This time I removed it as vandalism, because that's what it became. The first replacement might have been construed as a response to the question in the edit summary, so, okay. The third reveals your real purpose, harassment. You will be blocked for continuation, I now predict. That's what you want, right? --Abd 07:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for letting me know just how much you appreciate massive amounts of material. I'll do my best to accommodate your level of desire to be presented with massive amounts of material. —Moulton 07:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Your thoughtful consideration will help us improve Wikiversity. Now, stay off my user page. Thanks. --Abd 07:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rest assured I will follow the lead of your example. —Moulton 07:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, warning stands. --Abd 07:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll take "Or Else!" for 20 Quatloos, Alex. —Moulton 07:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima[edit]

Before he left on his hiatus, Ottava Rima wrote:

I honestly don't know why people feel the need to post on someone else's talk page when they don't like them. Isn't avoidance supposed to be the natural human response? Too many people feel the urge to go to other people's talk page on things they aren't involved with and have a bad background with them.

The following colloquy on his talk page was paused because Ottava has now gone on hiatus.

Avoidance vs Engagement with Adversarial Antagonists

  • "I honestly don't know why people feel the need to post on someone else's talk page when they don't like them. Isn't avoidance supposed to be the natural human response? Too many people feel the urge to go to other people's talk page on things they aren't involved with and have a bad background with them."

Why not ask Abd why he does it? Or go back a few years and ask the allied editors of IDCab. Perhaps you will find someone who will level with you on their motivation. —Moulton 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You sure have been ultra active lately without any real purpose. Feeling bored? Not enough work in real life? Just need more attention? Perhaps a hobby - as a kid I use to build model ships and airplanes. Sure, you cut your hands a lot and glue things together that shouldn't be glued, but it is at least something. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As opposed to filing proposal after proposal and complaint after complaint? As opposed to riding wikipedia review like a hobby horse? As opposed to calling everyone who has ever disagreed with you nasty names? Perhaps you should take up your old hobby to the exclusion of your new one? Dinsdale 18:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't like you, Ottava. I'm posting here because you've disruptively moved posts of mine, and I insist that you cut it out.

I've long said that I favour dispute resolution over dispute prolongation. You attack everyone, and with me, that's going to get you my attention. Jack Merridew 21:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • After Jeff finishes his Ph.D. Thesis, perhaps he will return and engage with his adversaries in a gracious and sincere Truth and Reconciliation process. —Moulton 12:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Maybe the Wikiversity agnosimnesia can be treated by expanding the History of Wikiversity page. --JWSchmidt 03:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is what's impossible for a bureaucracy possible for an individual?[edit]

Talk:Cold_fusion/Skeptical_arguments/Were_the_excess_heat_results_ever_shown_to_be_artifact?/Input_Electrical_Power_Model#Dieter_Britz_evaluation_of_Moulton_power_model_theory. Barry, you heavily committed yourself to your Input Electrical Power Model theory, here, on your blog, in comments on the Knol article, and in other discussion groups around the 'net. You have stated "Moulton's Law," that once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it cannot be corrected. Does Moulton's Law apply to Moulton?

Can you demonstrate for us what you'd have wanted the "bureaucrats" to do? --Abd 17:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? —Moulton 17:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Your response to making a mistake. Bureaucrats cannot fix errors because it would involve admitting mistake. You are correct. Now, what about yourself? --Abd 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What mistake are you referring to? —Moulton 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You need it spelled out? Why? I'll answer, but do you really need it, or are you playing dumb? You don't think there are any obvious errors involved in what you did to create, maintain, and promote your "Input Electrical Power Model" theory?
You want me to go back over it and specify the errors? That takes a lot of time, and for whose benefit would it be done? Certainly not mine! I saw many errors quickly, and pointed them out, you proceeded to ignore the comments, ridicule them, parody them, post songs about them and about me and others, and to spread your theory from here to the far reaches of Outer Mongolia, wherever the internet reaches. So, if you really want to know, you may figure out, yourself, exactly what mistakes you made, and acknowledge them, so that you can move on. If you need help in that task, ask. You'll still have to do most of the work. --Abd 18:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you're talking about the error that ScienceApologist found, I thanked him for finding it and immediately posted a correction to the formula. ——Moulton 18:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what I described above. Suddenly, Barry, cat's got your tongue? Have you read the Britz analysis yet? Are you aware that he wrote part of what I'd written, though he wrote, on the narrow point, in excruciating detail with extensive mathematical analysis? I explained to you why bubble noise would be low-frequency, you ignored it, and you asserted true but irrelevant facts about power per cycle, i.e., the total energy involved in a transition does not depend on how long the transition takes, a basic law of thermodynamics, though you did not state it so clearly. You asserted hosts of true but irrelevant facts about telephony and electrolytic interruptors. You imagined relevant evidence in the CBS videos, and didn't accept my report of what McKubre himself said about it. Even though what McKubre said was actually obvious from those TV images and a knowledge of the kind of work he was doing at that time. And on and on, I could spend days writing about what you did. But I won't, not now. --Abd 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you're talking about his draft, I read the first draft and pointed out the most obvious errors, which he fixed in the subsequent draft. I'm now waiting for him to process my subsequents comments. I reckon it's about 9 PM in Denmark, so he might not get to them until tomorrow. —Moulton 20:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
How about posting "the most obvious errors"? Britz has published this study has announced it to others. I hope you understand that 3 KHz bubble noise and a supply that will handle about 1 MHz is devastating to your theory, right? I'd written, in discussion with you, 10 KHz and 100 KHz, respectively, as seat-of-the-pants estimates, but the proof from independent power measurements stands, even had Britz concluded that some error was possible. He concluded it was not. And it's not close. Barry, you screwed up, big time. But, bureaucracies, when they make a mistake, can't fix it. Is that a description of you? --Abd 20:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You can take the "diff" between his successive drafts, if you want to attend to the incremental revisions to his draft. I don't know where Dieter got the 1 MHz figure from. McKubre's Kepco Model 20-20M Power Supply has a frequency response of 10 KHz. —Moulton 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you know how to read the power supply specifications. This was one of the original problems. The bandwidth here in the specs may refer to the programming bandwidth. Britz analyzes a general circuit that may be used by some researchers, many would not buy that power supply, they would use a power operational amplifier. I don't have "successive drafts." I ran into the problem of understanding the BOP specifications before. The relevant specification appears to be "recovery step load" which is specified in usec (max), for the BOP20-20M this is 75 microseconds in current mode. It appears this is the maximum time for the supply to recover current regulation when shifting from a dead short to a normal load; as this is the maximum time, I'd assume the load would be such as to require maximum voltage, i.e., 20 V at the set current, so we would be going from 0 V to 20 V. The voltage step variation in the sample bubble noise shown looks like about a half volt max, implying about 2 microseconds to adjust voltage to keep set current, if the relationship is linear. The resistance does not change rapidly, Britz notes the frequency spectrum of the bubble noise, citing his paper, P. Holst-Hansen, D. Britz, J. Electroanal. Chem. 388 (1995) 11, as not extending beyond 3 KHz. --Abd 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, 75 μsec is the maximum time to slew from one extreme to the other when the load impedance changes abruptly. I don't know where Britz is coming up with his 1 MHz radio frequency figure, rather than the 10 KHz audio frequency figure in the Kepco specs, but it makes no difference. Instead of dealing with fluctuating real resistance, he now has to model the radio frequency impedance of the capacitance arising from the bubbles, which form an electrolytic capacitor at the interface between the electrodes and the electrolyte. As the voltage across the capacitance builds up, energy is stored as an electric field in the bubble. When the bubble detaches, this stored energy is dissipated in the electrolyte. —Moulton 05:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You are still not getting it, Barry. 1 MHz is the bandwidth of the typical setup, used by many electrochemists, not of the Kepco power supply. We are talking about how well the supply tracks the resistance, adjusting the voltage to maintain constant current. Energy stored in the capacitance was supplied by the supply at low rate of change of resistance. That's figured into input power already. All this does is to delay the release of heat for a time. It introduces no visible error.
  • You have completely missed the point. The issue is not whether or not there is AC noise. There is AC noise. He shows the AC noise from an actual experiment. The question is not "AC noise," per se, but current noise. If the current is well-regulated, if the response of the power supply is fast, the level of current noise remains very low. I.e., the supply can change more rapidly than the resistance. He shows results for various values of the power supply time constant. Even at values of time constant much longer than likely for a supply, he shows that the possible error in input power estimation through the constant current assumption is negligible. He's explicit. You are quibbling about details.
  • You have continued to make the same error over and over, assuming that "AC noise" will cause a problem. No. There can be lots of AC noise, but if it all -- or all but a negligible amount -- is voltage noise, as everyone knows exists, the power will be correctly calculated from the product of average voltage (average considers the voltage noise!) and constant current squared. You have claimed error through the quadratic product, which only is relevant if the current is not constant.
  • And you have neglected piles of evidence that the input power estimation is accurate, within the needs of these experiments. This isn't science, Barry, it's attachment to conclusions. I'm amazed that you continue. --Abd 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you now concede there is AC noise, then let's have report of the measured AC noise power, along with any analytical models that are proposed to explain the source of the AC noise. Do you concede that a voltage perturbation launches a traveling wave (i.e. a telephonic noise signal) that propagates from the cell to the power supply, which then "answers" with a complementary traveling wave (another telephonic signal) back to the cell? How many dBm of telephonic noise power are in these noise signals and complementary return pulses from the power supply? —Moulton 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I must have told you dozens of times that there is AC noise. You misrepresented my position and that of McKubre many times. Britz shows the voltage noise. He then infers, from that, the resistance noise and shows current noise based on various assumed time constants for the power supply. You are still assuming that "AC noise power" is the relevant issue. You think that if there is "telephonic noise power" it will add to the power supply power being dissipated in the load. If current is effectively held constant, the AC noise power is not additive to the average power as used by the electrochemists. There is obviously AC noise power, look at the voltage! I went over this for you, in mathematical detail, you simply ignored it, as you are now trying to ignore Britz. Ignorance catches up with you, Barry. I'm tired of continuing to explain to you what has already been explained. Find someone knowledgeable to agree with you, great. I'll look at it again. --Abd 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AC noise power is the relevant issue that we are discussing. Yes AC noise power adds to DC power. The current is not held constant, but has transients that occur when the resistance of the load changes. These transients propagate as traveling wave signals, otherwise known as telephone noise signals. Telephone noise signals have power in them, measured in decibels. Telephone signals are not the kind of signals that electrochemists typically study. I looked at the voltage in Dieter's plot and saw the noise. As you may know, telephone engineers and audio engineers are among the few people who bother to measure and model such noise signals. This is what we did in telephone network performance planning, because noise on telephone circuits is annoying. The plot of the real noise in Figure 5 shows that it's about 18 mW or 12 dBm, which works out to about 65 joules per hour, over and above the 10 W of DC power. 10 W of DC power dissipates 36000 joules per hour. When you add 65 joules per hour of AC noise to 36000 joules per hour, you get 36065 joules per hour total. The extra 65 joules per hour explains where 65 joules per hour of otherwise unexplained heat comes from. —Moulton 07:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, I suppose there may be some definition of AC power, as a tautology that excludes DC power. I.e., AC power = Total power - DC power. However, Figure 5 does not show any particular level of this kind of AC power. Figure 5 could be consistent with zero "AC Power." (I.e, negligible AC power.) From what assumptions do you derive "18 mW" as the power shown in Figure 5, which only shows voltage noise? --Abd 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Figure 5 shows the AC noise voltage, which propagates an AC noise signal. When you square the AC noise voltage and divide it by the impedance of the circuit into which it works, you get the AC noise power dissipated in that load. It's of the order of a few tens of milliwats for the example in Dieter's draft. —Moulton 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, this is not a definition of AC noise power that is additive to DC power. Consider this thought experiment: There is 10 watts of DC power, being 10 volts at 1 amp. The situation is such that the current noise is below measurement, i.e., the response of the power supply is immediate, and the slew rate of the supply and the control circuit is such that voltage tracks the changes in impedance very closely. (Britz, in his actual analysis, points out that the deviation from this depends on the time constant of the control circuit, which is correct.) Suppose there is, riding on the DC level of 10 volts, an 0.2 volt RMS AC signal. But under the conditions described, the RMS AC current noise would be zero. As an additive quantity, the AC power noise would be zero.
  • What you have done with your formula, V^2/R, is to assume current, i.e., V/R, which varies inversely with the resistance. the power would then be the product of V and V/R, producing the formula you just used. But, in fact, the current does not vary inversely with the resistance, the control circuit acts to maintain constant current, and so, then, the actual current noise ("AC current") is far less than what you just asserted. Far less. Your calculation of 18 mW is radically off. The true AC power is a function of not only the voltage noise, but of the time constant of the control circuit, a factor you completely neglected in your calculation. --Abd 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your postulated system model is non-causal, as it either requires information about a real-time stochastic process to be transmitted faster than the speed of light or already be known in advance. The power supply does not learn of the existence of the noise pulse until after it arrives at the threshold of the power supply. By that time, it's too late to do anything about it, because the noise pulse has already traveled through the intervening medium and dissipated its power along the route. —Moulton 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you remember when you allowed infinite slew rate in considering this problem? Same assumption. You are correct. The response time is finite. However, the magnitude of the actual noise depends on the time constant of the power supply control circuit. The thought experiment assumes zero, and you correctly note that this is impossible. However, the real time constant is far shorter than the transition time of the noise. Are you now claiming -- as you did before -- that the time constant is irrelevant, that the "AC power noise" depends only on the voltage noise and the nominal impedance? It is obvious that with sufficient control, i.e., sufficiently short time constant, the current noise can be kept below any particular level, i.e., what I described as "zero." That means "negligible." By the way, in a thought experiment, it would not be necessary for the information to be transmitted at greater than the speed of light. What would be needed would be a way to anticipate the resistance changes, so the supply can actually change with them. This would produce zero-response-time voltage. It would produce *almost* the same voltage as the real circuit, and the question is the deviation. The deviation obviously depends on the time constant of the control circuit, but your formula assumed no response at all, as if the time constant were long. You claimed that Britz showed 18 mW, but, in fact, he did not. You calculated it, following your same error. This is why you could not function as a Wikipedia editor on science articles, because you obviously don't know how to read and cite sources without introducing synthesis, or don't care. --Abd 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I defy you to build a telephone circuit that doesn't work, even when the central office battery is replaced by a constant-current power supply. We have one of the most dramatic constant-current power supplies ever built in the Theater of Electricity at the Boston Museum of Science. It's MIT's giant Van de Graaf Generator. And I guarantee you that the signals it delivers into a variable impedance are quite energetic. —Moulton 20:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton, Barry Kort (for cross reference to the many discussions off-wiki), this response has nothing to do with constant current circuits as used in electrochemical experiments. Telephone circuits, which I have worked on, involve long lines, where attempted constant current would create severe problems. Cold fusion cells involve cells immediately adjacent to the power supply. Your answer is pure BS, it's where you go when your pseudomathematical arguments reach the end of their power. Your theory has been firmly rejected by an expert in exactly the topic, possibly the world's foremost, on the narrow issue. You have, against this, babble about telephone lines and Van de Graaf generators? Telephone circuits work, and what I have claimed, and what McKubre has claimed, and what Britz has now claimed, supported with evidence, is not contrary to your repeated noise about telephones, claiming we believe other than we believe. Nor did our claims contradict the existence of noise power, as you pretended as well. That's one of your techniques: falsely claim that someone who disagrees with you is claiming something preposterous, but not actually showing it, just setting up a form of ridicule. Your approach is bankrupt, but you keep issuing checks. --Abd 00:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To answer the question in the section header, obviously the answer is, No, Moulton can't correct errors. --Abd 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have enough trouble just correcting my own errors. There is no way I can correct everyone else's errors, too. (And if I'm wrong about that, then here I am making yet another error about my lack of ability to correct errors.) —Moulton 04:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Moulton can't correct his own errors. Yes, you have enough trouble. Now, if bureaucracies can't correct their own errors, and Moulton can't correct his, could there be a common cause? What is it about bureaucracies that make it difficult for them to correct their errors? I can see a possible common thread. The members of bureaucracies don't believe that they make errors, generally. They are just doing their job, they think.... From the above, you apparently believe that "correcting errors" means correcting the errors of others. ("everyone else's errors.") Indeed, correcting the errors of others seems to be a major part of your effort, for years. Yet you obviously don't know how to correct your own. Identify and correct your own, you might improve at correcting the errors of others.
When you have corrected your own errors -- which requires rigorous self-examination, it requires the kind of effort Feynman suggested, diligent attempt to falsify one's own theories -- then you will see more clearly what remains from others, and, indeed, you may have more sympathy and will possibly be better able to reach others. Good luck, this is not easy work.
One hint: in practice, it starts with careful listening. --Abd 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Abd, you and I have a common problem. We both have trouble finding people who are competent to review our work. I really only have one important theory that is truly my own, and that's the theory presenting a proposed mathematical relationship between emotions and learning. Pretty much everything else is someone else's original work, which I am adapting and applying to some relevant case. —Moulton 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[13] a guy that tried cold fusion cells in his lab. The neutron detectors were measuring the noise in the electric current. They only noticed because their videocamera was connected to the same circuit and it was making strange things. They switched to diesel generators and the neutron detectors went silent (in page 54). --Enric Naval 11:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Enric, that is a very different kind of "AC power noise." Electronic neutron detectors were famously vulnerable to line power noise, there are many reports. Bottom line, F-P experiments produce such low levels of neutrons that they were extremely difficult to measure with electronic detectors. It was done, by experiments run in mines, as far away from cosmic ray background as possible, by the Italians (Scaramuzzi, I believe), but this clearly was such low levels, in bursts, that the most it could indicate is some unknown nuclear reaction, with lots of room for doubt. The later SPAWAR neutron findings are using a technique that can integrate very low levels over long times, discriminating from background. --Abd 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The SPAWAR video showed the kind of "sparkles" that were first reported in the second half of the 19th Century, and eventually documented by Jules Violle. These "sparkles" were determined to be tiny spark discharges in the gas bubbles forming on the surface of the electrodes. It's the same kind of discharge you get from static electricity, from Van de Graaf generators, and from lightning bolts. When the voltage across bubble is high enough to overcome the dielectric constant of the gas, you get a tiny spark, just like in the spark plugs of your automobile engine. —Moulton 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Barry you are a master of indirection. Giving a search instead of the actual URL showing what you are claiming is one of your common devices. It discourages actual verification. So I'm not looking at the Violle report; however, from some text in the search I can see that this may be referring to the "electrolytic interruptor" you've previously gone on about. In an interruptor, high voltages are involved, the resistance goes high, because of a bubble covering the entire electrode, so there can be a discharge. This is far, far from the conditions in a CF cell, where the voltage never rises by more than about 0.5 volt above roughly 10 V nominal. Bottom line, you are grasping at straws, really preposterous arguments. The spark discharges you describe typically involve thousands of volts. What would generate this voltage in a CF cell? Surely not the power supply! --Abd 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's the URL that was in my e-mail to Rolf Wuthrich on January 27th. Those URLs are not permalinks; it's been more than a month, and the link that was in the site's search cache in January is no longer valid. Mike had retrieved the paper from his library account at Brown University. The paper cannot be accessed without a subscription. —Moulton 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup. Here is one independent report from a Canadian electrochemist:

Dear Dr. Kort,

Thank you for your interest in our work. Actually I am VERY skeptical about everything related to “cold fusion”. I believe nowadays it is more or less clear that such an effect doesn’t exist. Personally, I did never ever observe any excess heat produced during electrode effects.

There are some production of chemical species which, in a first non careful analysis seems to be higher than Faraday’s law, but when including everything that should be included in the analysis, here as well nothing “magical” happens. Many of the “strange” effects observed or claimed by researchers, are due to the lack of understanding of this very complex effect, which I have to say, does not fail to surprise us. This full understanding is only slowly and progressively building up and it will still take some efforts before everything is clearly understood. But “cold fusion” is in my opinion definitely not an effect that should be seriously considered.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Rolf Wuthrich

Rolf Wuthrich, PhD
Associate Professor and Concordia University Research Fellow
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Concordia University
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
Montreal, Quebec

Would you mention, Barry, why you thought to write to Dr. Wuthrich? His report that he did not see excess heat is, you know, very consistent with the full body of experimental report, even if he did attempt a Pons-Fleischmann replication, I see no sign that he did. If you look at, say, the SRI work by McKubre, you will see that McKubre likewise "didn't see it." Most of the time! It was very difficult to set up the conditions, and what was never done, and clearly Dr. Wuthrich didn't do it, was to find out what was the cause of the apparent excess heat, and the cause is still, indeed, very much unknown, except that the *ash* is known, helium. Wuthrich simply dismisses all that, the reasons to think that fusion might, indeed, be happening, with what is obviously out-of-touch: I believe nowadays it is more or less clear that such an effect doesn’t exist. There is an effect, called the Pons-Fleischmann effect. You are, in fact, alleging a cause for it, though on that's preposterous. That Dr. Wuthrich didn't see it is no proof at all that the effect does not exist, and if he found reason to believe that this effect, apparent excess heat, doesn't exist, has he disclosed it? Looking, I found why you might have written him: Electrolysis in Aqueous Solutions Under Extreme Current Densities – Fundaments and Applications of Electrochemical Discharge Phenomenon. This would not have application to cold fusion, as far as I can see. He's just given you, informally, his opinion. This means? --Abd 16:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I wrote to Rolf Wüthrich after reading his paper on the early history of electrochemistry. That's how I learned about Jules Violle, whose name and role I mentioned to you previously. It's a very nice history paper that establishes what was known in the second half of the 19th Century regarding the effect of bubbles on the electrodes. I wrote him on January 27th to find out if his analysis had ever been applied to explain what's going on in CF cells. Here is the text of my message to Professor Wuthrich:

Professor Wüthrich,

Do you happen to know if the effects you have written about have been invoked to explain what's really going on in electrolytic cells in which some researchers (notably Edmund Storms and Michael McKubre) have claimed to be due to "cold fusion"?

There is some evidence that disruptions in the flow of current, arising from the action of bubbles forming on the surface of the electrodes, is a potential explanation of the otherwise unexplained "excess heat" reported in the so-called "cold fusion" cells.

Can you tell me if anyone who is knowledgeable in this field has applied the theories proposed and developed by André Blondel and Karl Taylor Compton to explain the strange phenomena occurring in "cold fusion" cells?

Many thanks for any light you can shed on this puzzle.


Barry Kort

Barry Kort, Ph.D.
Visiting Scientist
Affective Computing Research Group
MIT Media Lab

Moulton 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this is probably the paper, Electrochemical discharges—Discovery and early applications, this is about glow discharge electrolysis. High voltage. Nothing to do with cold fusion. --Abd 16:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the paper. Mike retrieved it for me. —Moulton 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And just this morning, Dieter Britz told me that he is unconvinced of the reality of cold fusion or LTNR or CMNS. Like Rob Duncan and myself, he is interested in seeing compelling evidence that corroborates a good theoretical explanation of what is really going on in those cells.
Dieter thinks my analysis of AC circuit noise is incorrect. I have left him with some unanswered questions from me on his analysis (portions of which I don't yet understand). He agrees that my questions are troubling. For example, I asked him, "How come, with R(t) = 10 + sin ωt, you have I(t) = 1 - 0.004 sin ωt with no phase delay? Shouldn't the response from the regulated current power supply be running behind perfect phase-locked synchrony with the sinusoidally varying resistive load?" Dieter told me he isn't sure why it comes out like that. Nor is he sure why the amplitude of the counteracting current is not closer to 0.1 (as I also would have expected). It shouldn't be that hard to map Dieter's numerical analysis into a corresponding analytical approximation. But I can't read the essential parameters off the graphs in his PDF. It's one thing to read the amplitude of his sinusoidal current. But there is no way I can detect the phase delay from a visual inspection of his digitized plot. I've asked Dieter to give me the correct values of the amplitude, frequency, and phase shift of his formula for the well-regulated current. It would be easy enough for me to do the maths for that case, as it only amounts to multiplying two phase-shifted sinusoids and finding the coefficient of the sin² term. The expected value of sin² is ½, so all that's required is to focus on the sin² term in the product of I(t) × E(t) and divide it by 2 to get the contribution to power from the transient signal arising from time-varying resistance.
And that brings us up to date as of 8:15 AM EST today.
Moulton 13:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've had very friendly correspondence with Dieter for, I think, a year. what you have stated from him is quite consistent with my impression, and when he writes, interested in seeing compelling evidence that corroborates a good theoretical explanation of what is really going on in those cells. I believe him. I have not "confronted" Dr. Britz with the "compelling evidence," that's not how I operate. Britz, however, would have been, from his comments, inclined to support your theory, if he thought there was a shred of possibility of it being accurate. His paper only covered a narrow slice of the reasons why the theory is untenable. You are essentially nit-picking it. If I'm correct, by the way, the simulation you are referring to isn't particularly well-regulated, that was a pessimitic assumption for time constant. Once again, Barry, you are making no effort to falsify your own theory, you are not seeking contrary evidence, you are ignoring it. --Abd 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I asked more than half a dozen people who have credentials in electrical engineering to review my work. You only know about Dieter's review so far. As of a few hours ago, Dieter and I were still reviewing the discrepancies, including one in Equation 2 that he probably hasn't gone back to look at yet. But perhaps you can look at Equation 2 and see if you find anything wrong with it. —Moulton 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kibbitzing on the back of your envelope[edit]

Back of the envelope calculations.

From Figure 8:

Assume a sinusoidally varying resistance:

R(t) = 10 + sin ωt 

Dieter's hypothetical well-regulated current in Figure 8 is:

I(t) = 1 − 0.004 sin ωt

Question:  How does he manage to have zero phase shift?

Long term average "constant current":

<I> = 1 A

The observed voltage swing is:

E(t) = I(t) × R(t) = 10 + 0.996 sin ωt − 0.004 sin² ωt

Long term average voltage is:

<E> = 10 − 0.004/2 = 10 − 0.002 = 9.998 V

What would McKubre use as his average of 32 samples?  I need to know how often he samples the voltage.

If you just multiply <E> × <I> you get:

P<sub><small>DC</small></sub> = <E> × <I> = 9.998 W 

From Dieter's analysis: 

P(t) = E(t) × I(t) 

P(t) = 10 + 0.996 sin ωt − 0.004 sin² ωt − 0.04 sin ωt − 0.003984 sin² ωt + 0.000016 sin³ ωt

Collecting terms, 

P(t) = 10 + 0.966 sin ωt − 0.007984 sin² ωt + 0.000016 sin³ ωt

Long-term expected value is:

<P> = 10 − 0.007984/2  = 10 − 0.003992 = 9.996008 W

Discrepancy = P<sub><small>DC</small></sub> − <P> = 9.998 − 9.996008 = 1.992 mW 

But would Dieter say the declared input power is 10 W?  If so, the discrepancy is 4 mW.

What is the ground truth?
Question: How does he manage to have zero phase shift?

He is looking for the upper bound of the effect. Maximum effect would occur if there is no phase shift, which would mean, again if I'm correct, a purely resistive load. In fact, the load is somewhat capacitative, so the effect would be reduced, he does note this.

What would McKubre use as his average of 32 samples? I need to know how often he samples the voltage.

McKubre doesn't say. With his approach, what matters is that the sample times are not correlated with the signal, i.e, the signal is, in relation to the sampling times, random. If they were correlated with the signal, large errors could appear, in either direction, depending on phase. Sampling noise will be minimized but not eliminated by using an average from 32 samples, but, then, in practice, to determine input energy, all the results are averaged together. An average over some period is used, I'm sure, for what is displayed in the charts, which have a time base with 20 hours per division.

Using the sinusoidal simulation is quite unrealistic, the best work Britz does is with a model constructed from the actual experimental data, his Figure 5, which shows what real bubble noise looks like. I was a bit surprised by that, the strong periodicity was not what I'd expected. I think we are seeing some kind of relaxation oscillator, perhaps a large bubble builds up at the bottom and releases, sweeping away many smaller bubbles. The key piece of data, however, is that 3 KHz figure. No significant noise voltage above 3 KHz.

Error from the average voltage times the square of the constant current will arise from actual variations in current. The current will vary from the set current according to the time constant of the control circuitry, so Britz's calculations assume various stated time constants.

The simulations appear to be designed so that the average voltage is 10.0 and the set current is 1.00 amp. He then calculates the true power, based on deviation from set current according to the time constant assumed, as it interacts with the frequency of the noise. With the sinusoidal model, he shows a true power that would be slightly above the measured power by the method described. However, with the true data model, he shows a true power that is slightly below the measured power. We are looking at about ten seconds of time. He isn't explicit, particularly, but the error lessens with time.

In your analysis above, Barry, you gave a figure of 18 mW, and I asked you how you obtained this figure, since Britz does not state it. The possibly additive noise power does vary directly, under a condition of no phase shift, with the current noise, and if there were no current noise, there would be no additive noise power due to the quadratic error. Hence deriving 18 mW from Figure 5 was pulling a figure out of the air, apparently assuming (?) a lousy power supply, unable to maintain regulation, as far as I could tell, you did not answer my question about how you calculated this. Clearly, the current noise, for constant voltage noise, varies with the time constant of the power supply, under the relevant operating conditions. You have at various times implied that the power supply response was irrelevant. That's obviously false, can you acknowledge that? Calculating the actual current noise requires considering the time constant of the control circuit, and the shorter the time constant, the more perfect the regulation, and therefore the lower the current noise. --Abd 21:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Zero phase shift means more than just a purely resistive load. It also means transmitting the cancelation signal so that it meets the noise signal in mid-flight. But that's impossible, since the control circuit cannot react until it has received the noise burst and measured it. And by that time, it's too late to shoot it down. But even if the control circuit were omniscient and launched a cancelation pulse in advance, when the two wave fronts collided (and annihilated each other) their energy would be dissipated as heat at the locus of the collision. Echo cancelers on telephone circuits and noise canceling headphones can do this, because they can get the information ahead of time and construct the cancelation signal and deliver it to where it's needed to do the job. But the energy from the two complementary waves doesn't vanish from the universe. The coherent pulses of the colliding traveling waves are disrupted and the energy in them is dissipated as local heat (thermal electrons in echo cancelers or warmer air inside your headphones). You can stop a bullet in mid-flight with an equal and opposite bullet, but you cannot make their combined energy disappear. You can only make it incoherent. The sinusoidal model is useful (as Dieter notes) if you are going to model the noise as a Fourier Transform and apply the Superposition Theorem. Dieter ran the data for his simulated bubble noise through a digital low pass filter, so the 3 KHz bandwidth in his model is an artifact of his construction of simulated noise. There is something wrong in all these models. No two models are in agreement, which is a sure sign that at least one of them is wrong. It would help to have the actual data, because the issue is not the fact of burst noise, but its amplitude and spectrum, and the way real power supplies respond to it. By real power supplies, I mean ones where propagation delay and filtering delays are reckoned so that the phase delays are correctly modeled. It's hard to figure out where Dieter is making unrealistic simplifications regarding unavoidable delays in control circuits because they cannot operate faster than the speed of light, nor can they launch cancelation signals before they've actually received the incoming fire (by which time it's too late). —Moulton 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This morning, when I asked Dieter about his well-regulated current, I(t) = 1 − 0.004 sin ωt, for the case of driving a sinusoidally varying resistance, he became perplexed, saying he wasn't sure why the amplitude of the sin wave wasn't closer to 0.1. Dieter is using a Fortran program, so I have no way to see his work. I can only see the graphs of what his Fortran program is producing. I was frankly astonished that he was claiming the well-regulated current had zero phase delay and such a small amplitude, but I went with his figures because that's all I had to go on.
If the well-regulated current is closer to I(t) = 1 − 0.1 sin ωt (with or without some additional phase delay), then the product of I(t) × E(t) will have a sin² term with a considerably larger coefficient (25 times larger). Instead of a 2 mW discrepancy, we would have a 50 mW discrepancy. 50 mW is still small relative to 10 W, but it's precisely the order of magnitude I had suggested was sufficient to account for about 180 joules per hour of excess heat. —Moulton 13:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Britz wrote, and you quoted, in your sandbox notes:
The mathematics of this is that for a given cell voltage E(t) and cell conductance A(t) = 1/R(t), and differentiating Ohm’s law, I(t) = E(t) × A(t), with respect to time, we get a change in current dI(t)/dt = E(t) dA(t)/dt, which we discretise below in a two-point approximation.
And then you asked,
Moulton's Question du jour to Dieter: Why did you not apply the Product Rule when you differentiated I(t) = E(t) × A(t) with respect to time?
Without addressing the applicability of what Britz wrote, he did not apply the product rule because, under the stated condition, "a given cell voltage E(t)," dE(t)/dt is zero, thus that term is zero. He explicitly mentions this at the beginning of that paragraph, the last sentence of which you quoted:
A given step change in resistance will result initially in an opposite current transient, assuming that the current generator's output voltage E(t) at the instant of the step change does not change [instantly] but takes time to change to the required new value. The step change in current, δI, will then decay by an exponential function with time constant τ so that the current will tend to revert to Ia. Depending on the value of τ, the decay might be complete well within the duration of the change (e.g. 0 . . . t1,), or it may not have relaxed to Ia within that time. This is the general case.
Then he wrote what you quoted. He has not made a differentiation error. He is looking, in this particular analysis, at the instantaneous effect on current of a shift in resistance (conductance as he expresses it), before the power supply control circuit can adjust the voltage to bring the current back to the set value. --Abd 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So, let me see if I have this right. Dieter says:
A given step change in resistance will result initially in an opposite current transient, assuming that the current generator’s output voltage E(t) at the instant of the step change does not change [instantly] but takes time to change to the required new value.
And to you, that means the voltage E(t), which does not change instantly to the new value, but takes time to change to the required new value, has a zero time-derivative, because, in your mind, it's a constant voltage that does not change over time as it takes its time changing from one value to a required new value? Is that about right?
Moulton 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really. What he is calculating is the instantaneous effect. At the instant of change in the example he is describing, the derivative of the voltage is zero, and it stays at zero for some finite time, for reasons that you have explained.
Remember, this is just his first example, a step function. The immediate effect of the resistance change is a change in current, not a change in voltage. He then writes about the "decay" of the current, exponentially, to the original set value. That obviously requires voltage change. The initial condition is an abrupt (zero rise time) resistance transient, which obviously creates, then, an immediate "opposite" current transient (neglecting capacitance for the moment). At the moment of change of the current, as you have amply pointed out, the rate of change of the voltage is zero, the "signal" will propagated to the power supply control circuit, which will then adjust the voltage. This isn't just "in my mind," it's what he wrote. Explicitly.
This example, however, is unrealistic because it has a high-frequency component, that abrupt transition, which is missing from the real bubble noise (his prior paper noted no noise power above 3 KHz). While there must be, as you have noted, a phase delay, only the current error resulting from change in the last (short) period of time remain uncompensated, and that is, by the condition of low-frequency noise, a very small error. It is determined by the slew rate of the resistance shifts and the time constant of the control circuit. --Abd 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that the time derivative of a changing voltage is zero, even though the voltage is changing as a result of a change in the resistance? Is that about right? —Moulton 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No, obviously not. You point to the chart. At t=0, there is a discontinuity. You cannot read the time derivative at t=0 from that chart, it's indeterminate. However, from the theoretical considerations you are fond of introducing when you think they benefit your argument, there must be a time delay in the adjustment of the voltage, it cannot immediately begin to respond, because there is a finite time for the changed current signal to reach the control circuit and result in a returned voltage change. Therefore the derivative at t=0 is zero. However, a very short time later, the control circuit will begin to respond, thus producing a voltage slew.
Read my lips: at t=0, the voltage is not changing. It does not begin to change until later. As I wrote above, this fact does not necessarily mean that Britz's overall analysis is correct, it merely means that what he wrote, that you quoted, was, in fact correct, and that his *initial assumption* of unchanging voltage was likewise correct. He *also* states that then the current begins to slew back toward the set current, and the mechanism for that is voltage change, produced by the control circuit.
You have produced no complete analysis, yourself, in spite of claiming that it would be simple (sophomore level circuit analysis) to do so. You have neglected the most important factor, the time constant of the control circuit, as it interacts with the rate of change of the resistance. Maybe time to review that sophomore level electronics theory? I'm working on a simplification of the problem, based on the fact -- if it's a fact -- that power error is maximized if there is no time delay, no phase shift, in the current noise vs the voltage noise. But I don't assign this a high priority.
But let me guide you through (do you ever accept guidance?) a thought experiment. If the rate of change of the resistance is low enough, and the control circuit fast enough (low enough time constant), the control circuit will cause the current to remain at set current, with the deviation from that being below measurement. Obviously, for any real values, it must be finite, as to theory, but, in practice, there are other sources of noise in any measurement, and with low enough rate of change and fast enough control, the current error from this effect would be "zero." I.e., not measureable.
This means that with fast enough control, the current may be treated as constant, and thus the average voltage times set current squared procedure works for measuring input power, subject only to sampling error, which can readily be determined, and which is also well below other noise.
This is the real issue: What is the actual current noise? Britz attempts to infer it from circuit analysis. He shows, at least partially, that with reasonable values for time constant and resistance noise, the error is negligible, he has stated in private correspondence that it's under 0.1%. Above, you claimed to derive -- but refused or failed to explain how you derived it -- 18 mW from Britz's data, his chart showing actual voltage noise. That would be 0.18%, and was likely a drastic overstatement. So, as to substance, what are you debating? In McKubre's recent work with the Energetics Technologies replication, he didn't consider excess energy important until it was 5% or more. In figure 3-15 of the McKubre documentation for EPRI of P13/P14, McKubre shows about 5% excess power, clearly standing out above noise. You want to impeach a 5% excess power measurement based on an 0.2% possible input power measurement error? Your bias is showing, Barry, in a place where the evidence is clear. --Abd 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Abd, are you aware that the time-derivative of E(t) at time t=0 is defined as the limit, as t → 0, of [E(t) − E(0)]/t? In Dieter's model, you can take this as the first discrete value of E(t) after t=0, which is t = 1 msec, since he samples E(t) at the rate of 1000 samples per second (for a total of 10,000 Nyquist samples over 10 seconds). —Moulton 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The limit of that is 0, because until a finite time t(min), before the control circuit responds, there is no change in voltage, only in current. That condition continues from t=0 to t(min). Therefore the derivative at t=0 is zero. That's clear from first principles, which you have often asserted to claim what is, in practice, preposterous. Here, you are appealing to the simulation, which might neglect, at those times and in practice, the initial lack of response. I presume, indeed, because the control circuit is fast, with response certainly within microseconds, that the initial value at t = 1 msec, will show change. By the way, if you are blocked, you may continue this dialog with me, within limits, through email, and I would post it on-wiki, assuming it is not otherwise disruptive. Your vigorous debate, even tendentious debate, on cold fusion, would not be blockworthy to me, in itself.
As to simulation practice, I'd question determining a rate of change at a time based on the next data point. It would be safer, in general, to calculate from the previous data point. Dieter shows initial error that settles, and that may be a result of abrupt initial conditions. --Abd 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The first instant of time after t = 0 for which Dieter has a sample is 1 msec. He asserts that the galvanostat has a frequency response of 1 MHz, so that at t = 1 μsec, the show is already on the road. If Dieter wishes to compute the correct value of the energy in the interval between t = 0 and t = 1 msec, he must take the value of the time derivative of E(t) during the interval from t = 0 to t = 1 msec. If you wish to delude yourself into believing that nothing is happening during the first millisecond, based on a claim that nothing is happening during the first microsecond, then by all means assume that nothing is happening during the first sampling interval. And good luck getting that past your Calculus professor at CalTech. —Moulton 17:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice of request for global lock.[edit]

Per the necessity and, in addition, your repeated demand that I do so, I have filed a request for global locking to deal with your insistent outing and other harassment on Wikiversity. --Abd 17:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Super. You are requesting something that already exists. I regret that I have but a quarter-million lives to give to my community. —Moulton 17:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No, what I'm requesting does not exist, obviously. It exists elsewhere than on WV and beta.wikiversity. The request would be for a steward to relink your WV account with your global account, and to lock Caprice, which may not be locked, I don't know. Alternatively, a steward could simply block both accounts here. Both kinds of actions can be corrected by local action, they would merely establish a default. You are clearly defiant, see [14], which had no "scholarly purpose" at all. You are essentially daring them, "Block me!" Well, sooner or later, Moulton, people may do what you dare them to do. They will even do this sometimes when it causes them considerable difficulty or damage.
Your bullying and threats ("a quarter million lives" -- i.e., making a massive range block necessary) will not work. You should be able to understand that. How do you respond to bullying? By complying? --Abd 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I respond to bullying by ignoring the bully. If the bully wants to use violent measures, that's the bully's choice. —Moulton 19:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"Violence" is relative to context. On a wiki, revert warring may be a form of violence. Revert warring on a user's talk page is certainly a form of violence. Threatening people with outing is a form of violence. I see you have now been blocked, no big surprise. I believe your access to email and your talk page are unimpaired, which I support as a start. Abuse this page, you know exactly what will happen, you've been here before. You are welcome to email me for assistance with any legitimate edit to Wikiversity. I will also watch this page for any such necessity. I recommend you negotiate restrictions in good faith, so that you can edit more efficiently, but that's, of course, up to you. --Abd 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In the 1970's there were some episodes involving the Weather Underground in which years of research by graduate students were destroyed in raids on university offices. That was an instance of violence. —Moulton 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of names[edit]

From now on, and until further notice, I prefer to be addressed here as Herr Doctor Professor Moulton. (But you can keep your hat on.) —Moulton 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it will work. --Abd 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Global lock for Moulton[edit]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

The terms, etc.[edit]

I think you could (and should!) provide some insightful input at Wikiversity:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence. The discussion does, after all, affect your work most of all. If you would be willing to refrain from addressing, discussing, or referring to any Wikimedia contributor by anything other than their chosen pseudonym for now, I'll gladly unblock so that you can make your case for a change in policy.

From my perspective, <name redacted> became a community member the first time <gender pronoun> made an edit here. Hence the block. --SB_Johnny talk 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'll be pointing out the weaknesses in the policy, as currently crafted, and why it tends to make Wikiversity look like a silly Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd. So, going forward, my new chosen pseudonym is how I prefer to be addressed during the discussion of adhering to declared and preferred pseudonyms. —Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Some points. The above was not a specific agreement.
  • It was not signed by Moulton, logged in, AFAIK (I'm on an IPhone).
  • There are other IP edits purporting to be Moulton. They are properly being reverted.
  • SBJ agreed to unblock under conditions. He has not yet determined that conditions are satisfied, claims that SBJ "invited" participation by Moulton as IP are therefore unverified.
  • As continued incivility has shown, Moulton can be equally disruptive without using real names.
  • Therefore unblock without a more comprehensive agreement may be unwise, unless the unblocking admin is prepared to closely supervise.
  • Pending that, indirect participation may be encouraged. I will explain how this can be done efficiently if asked. It worked with Thekohser.
  • I thank Mu301 and SBJ for stepping up to the plate. Moulton, I suggest some cool-down, and some consideration of whether or not you are willing to participate in WV as a peer among peers, which requires mutual respect. --Abd 01:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Johnny had to dash off to midwife a pregnant goat, so he asked me to post our agreement, which I did. When he comes back from his birther movement, he'll confirm our agreement. It's now almost 9PM so I reckon he won't be back online tonight. —Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly 01:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I don't really much care how he refers to the people in question, as long as it's not by their "real" names. Avoiding the use of actually insulting names would of course help the discussion move along better. In any case, I don't see why it would even come up in the CR itself, which is what HPD-E Moulton (DS) says he wants to work on. While the drama game has perhaps brought some issues to the fore that need to be addressed, I don't see how continuing the play at this point will pay off (and frankly it would likely distract from the productive discussion that has begun). --SB_Johnny talk 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Assuming you're leaving the "real names" out of things at least for the duration of the review, yes, of course. Perhaps Abd will cough up a few bucks for the notary fee and voodoo dolls, but in the meantime I'll unblock and assume that's all in the mail ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, it only took 16 hours, considerably faster than the 3 1/2 years that I'm still waiting for other (unnamed) characters in this long-running soap opera to reverse themselves. Moulton 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay, had a rough night/morning. --SB_Johnny talk 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I can empathize. I've had plenty of them myself. Did the birth go OK? —Moulton 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
False labor, it turns out. Not that I didn't have to go out to the barn several times during the freezing cold, of course, so my progress against the flu has been set back a bit. Shit happens, as they say. --SB_Johnny talk 20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Amazing symmetry. My labor (in midwifing an epiphany) was also fruitless on this occasion as well. And my progress in promoting 21st Century concepts of ethical best practices for good governance has also been set back a bit. So I can empathize. —Moulton 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have seen no signed agreement from Moulton (Herr Professor, etc.) to abide by community norms and policies. Given that, it's not a question of "letting the democratic community dialogue resume." That discussion has not stopped. Moulton has, by threatening to make massive range blocks necessary, and by actually making such block-evading edits, disruptive in themselves (i.e., not mere status offenses), made his own participation more difficult, but he may still participate. Had his contribution, post-block, to the discussion itself, by IP, been constructive, I might have reverted it back in myself, after making what I consider to be routine: reverting all block-evading contributions, other than those known to be acceptable.
With sufficient disruption, Moulton can make such broad range blocks necessary that participation becomes even more difficult for him. As a community, we should decide where to draw the line. Range blocks create inconvenience, a possible need for setting up block exemptions, and our notice to IP-blocked editors should, if it does not, make clear how to get an exemption. But not even totally effective range blocks could stop legitimate participation, for Moulton has means of getting his comments to those who may review and forward them as being of interest. For starters, he may simply place them on this Talk page, which remains open, and which, I expect, will remain open unless he abuses it. Disagreement and complaint are not abuse.
Moulton, in fact, could easily arrange to be unblocked, if that was what he wanted. He would simply need to do what I did, generally, when blocked on WP (or when warned): agree to follow behavioral restrictions as determined by an admin *pending review,* and without wikilawyering them. Only "idiot-administrators" (a wiki-technical term) would neglect that, and, in fact, none did, with a block of sufficient duration to be worth appealing. If I had some critical interest at Wikipedia, I could still pursue it, on whatever topic. I'd just need to follow the real due process, which might include an appeal to ArbComm.
Moulton has referred to "democratic community dialog." "Democratic" means, for most of us, that the community is in charge, which may be direct, or through accepted facilitators, administrators, or chairpersons. "Democracy" is not a synonym for "anarchy," for completely unrestricted debate. In any real democracy, you win some and you lose some, and you move on. If you do not accept the decision of the demos, you don't really want "democratic dialog," you want personal control, at personal whim. (An anarchist may believe that such "control" is not control, it is complete freedom for all, but the reality is that it excludes, confining participation to those willing to expose themselves to what others consider offensive and tendentious. Anarchist communities bleed participants, over time, as they burn out.) --Abd 16:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no "signed agreement amongst the members of this (presumptively) democratic learning community." The signed agreement mentioned by me would be one between you and an admin who agrees -- freely -- to unblock based on it. SBJ is correct, he never signed any policy. I have even edited policies, but that is not necessarily a specific personal agreement to follow them as written, because, as you know full well, IAR trumps policies, and my editing may represent some clarification or explanation.
Policies are, at best, merely relatively clear guides to what to expect as a community (or bureaucratic) response. You are not bound by policy, nor am I, but if either one of us violates a policy, in a way that offends others, we may find ourselves subject to sanctions, with the community accepting the sanctions.
SBJ offered to unblock you, Herr Professor, if you agreed to something. You did not agree, you made other comments, noises that might be assumed to be agreement, by someone not being careful, but you, later, would then be able to deny any agreement. My interpretation is that SBJ's offer was not accepted, and is void for lack of consideration. He will signify acceptance by the consideration of unblocking. He may now make new conditions, new offers, before doing so. You could try to tender your agreement, and he might accept it. He is free, and so are you. You are not equally free to edit Wikiversity, that's something different at this point.
The signature above is clear evidence that Herr Professor has, as yet, no intention of abandoning his practice of attacking persons, even when he does not specifically name them, ("Thuggish Baletocratic Blockheads", where, in context, the specific persons he has in mind -- Mikeu and SBJ -- are obvious, though he's generalizing as well). This is far, far from the practices and customs of academic study. It's political and personal polemic, theater, and, while theater may be used for educational purpose, even within academia, it is, in academia, confined to "events" and "classes" where it is appropriate and nondisruptive of the overall academic process. --Abd 17:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Abd, unless you were secretly listening in on the hour-long phone call last night between me and SBJ, I don't know how you could claim to know what we agreed to. Upon what evidence are you claiming to have knowledge of what we did or did not agree to during that lengthy phone call last night? —Moulton 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't need to know what was in that conversation, it is moot and unenforceable. SBJ has now unblocked you without seeing an on-wiki agreement, so, he's responsible for what ensues, in addition to you, unless he manages your ongoing behavior adequately, perhaps pursuant to your "agreement" on the phone. By his block, he interrupted other process that would have handled the situation, so ... it will come out in the wash. --Abd 18:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm about to make a trip to the laundromat. —Moulton 18:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, ten people discussed the proposed policy last summer. Of the ten, seven favored the language of the draft, two vigorously opposed it, and one was wishy-washy. Then Ottava Rima simply declared it to be official policy. No one signed it. Moreover, it contains this clause:

Living people

Wikiversity is open to research projects, but Wikiversity research policy explicitly calls for high ethical standards. Part of research ethics is protecting the privacy of people who are the subject of your research.

You are accountable and responsible for what you write about living people. If a person feels their reputation was negatively affected by what you wrote about them, you could be liable. Anonymity does not protect against liability claims. The reputation you save by checking facts and claims about living people might be your own.

The allied editors of IDCab (whose names need not be recited) did original research on a number of subjects, myself included. Their research, which included haphazard and demonstrably erratic theories of mind, were prominently published in the pages of Wikipedia. By the above policy, those authors are accountable and responsible for what they wrote (both here and originally on Wikipedia). By the above policy, their identity is not protected because 1) they authored content about identifiable living persons, and 2) there is incontrovertible evidence demonstrating that their original research presented damaging falsehoods that affected a substantial number of their subjects of biographical research, myself included.

Moulton 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Letter to the Dark Junta of the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse[edit]

This morning, I sent this message (in e-mail) to SBJ, with copies to Mike Umbricht, JTNeill, Leigh Blackall, JWSchmidt, Abd, and Kelly Martin:

Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:25 AM

Subject: Epic Fail: The Double Bind and Self-Defeating Personality Disorder


You said to Abd:

I'm generally annoyed, but you're not helping, Abd. Moulton already has my advice on the matter, but apparently doesn't think it's worth listening to. OTOH, I don't have all day to dedicate to it, so I'll just stand pat until people decide to actually discuss the matter at hand. --SB_Johnny talk 10:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But instead of keeping your word to stand pat, you engaged in the Double Bind. You invited me to focus 100% of my attention on discussing "the matter at hand" (the Wikiversity Community Review on Pseudonymity and External Correspondence) and simultaneous shut down and disrupted democratic discussion of it. With the help of Mike Umbricht, you locked out 328,192 IPs in four domains in three states from coast to coast to ensure that no such democratic community discussion took place.

Now if that isn't classic Double Bind to torpedo democratic community discussion, I dunno what is.

Ironically, the definition of the Double Bind is the last item I had posted in that very discussion that you asked me, Abd, Mike, and everyone to focus on. I had made that a second level heading, so that it would stand out as a significant topic. But you inexplicably removed it from from the table of contents at the top of the page.

Epic Fail. See Self-Defeating Personality Disorder.

By the way, the Double Bind is a classic practice of people who are diagnosed as Cluster/B/Fucks. And the effect of putting someone in the Double Bind is to distress them.

Johnny, did you happen to notice that I was emotionally distressed yesterday when you inexplicably put me in the Double Bind?

And you knew in advance this was the inevitable outcome.

So why did you do it? What was your over-arching goal (besides merely pissing me off).

--Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly Diagnostic Analyst

The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.

Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly Diagnostic Analyst 12:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kylu startles Moulton by being helpful[edit]

(Saw EL added in global RC feeds, had to fix. Hope you don't mind.) Kylu 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"I saw the external link added in the global recentchanges feed (which lets us see every edit made everywhere), which was malformed. I corrected your link for you and hope that you don't mind that this was done." - You put an external link ( in between double-brackets, which breaks the link, since it thinks you're trying to go to a wiki-page titled "". This was selected over using a simple external link due to the presence of the double-brackets, lack of need for an external link (since you're not linking to a log entry or diff, just a page section) and presence of the bar (|), which together seem to indicate what your actual intentions were. Kylu 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh. Yah, it was supposed to be an interwiki link. Thanks for fixing it. I was startled to find someone here who was actually helping me rather than working as hard as they could to undermine my ability to contribute to the educational mission of the project. How come you haven't been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for being such a good person? ——Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly 02:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Social dynamics: WR and Brandt still hate me and think I'm one of the multitudes of Antichrists out there in WP-land, therefore I'm still useful to WP. They (WR/Brandt) should experiment and remove people from the hive-mind page, start praising folks on WR for their "valued cooperation and use of rights in furtherance of our goals" and that sort of thing - the target would be flayed alive before the day was done, then. Speaking of him, tell him I'm not a steward anymore, so he needs to update his damn page. Thanks. Kylu 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • W-R and Brandt tend to focus too much on revenge and not enough on diagnosis and repair of damage from pervasive systemic dysfunctionality. To the extent they focus on revenge and payback, they perpetuate the dopamine-driven game (structurally similar to Zynga's Mafia Wars on Facebook) rather than evolving to insightful diagnosis and creative problem-solving. To my mind, what's needed is a paradigm shift from the anachronistic notion of Retributive Justice to the 20th Century notion of Restorative Justice. Alas, I have not yet discovered any reliable good practices for introducing into WikiCulture such modern concepts as Due Process, Human and Civil Rights, Truth and Reconciliation, Restorative Justice, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Diagnostic Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, and Best Practices for Ethical Governance. I'd be grateful to find anyone here who has an interest in exploring such unfamiliar concepts. —Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly Diagnostic Analyst 12:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Dunno if this is related, but its something I've puzzled about: Incarceration Nation. —Jtneill - Talk - c 13:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Outing" edit?[edit]

[20] may have been overlooked in the deluge. This edit appears to use, without necessity, a real name. Moulton, would you redact that? The real name is not at all necessary to make the point and, in fact, none of the names were necessary for that. --Abd 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

An imaginary dialogue[edit]

XtraNormal Cartoon Animation

Moulton: Abd, do you have a method for testing your beliefs for accuracy?

Abd: Yes. I express them and observe how they are understood and analyzed by others. I listen to the responses, and check them for accuracy.

Moulton: I see. And how, pray tell, do you check the accuracy of information gleaned in the responses?

Abd: I keep them in mind and later repeat them and observe how they are understood and analyzed by others. I listen to the responses, and check them for accuracy.

Moulton: I see. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Abd: It works for me.

Moulton: In the last four months, you have submitted mountains of such material to me on my blog, on my talk page, and elsewhere in dozens of talk page discussions. What have you learned in all that time?

Abd: I'm not sufficiently interested in being "educated" by you, Moulton. Too much wasted time, already.

Moulton: In that case, I expect it would be more efficient for both of us if you did not submit to me mountains of your material to be reviewed, analyzed, or critiqued.

Abd: I did not ask you to review any of that material.

Moulton: True enough. I reviewed it for you out of the goodness of my heart. Still, I can't help but wonder where you are coming from.

Abd: My position is one of trust that there is an ultimate reality, not that I know it, nor even that I could comprehensively know it.

Moulton: But I'm perplexed as to why you chose me to submit your mountains of material to, given that you're not particularly interested in learning anything in the process.

Abd: Because you do not have the qualifications or credentials or competence.

Moulton: Then you are welcome to remain ignorant.

Abd: That's my plan.

Moulton: That works for me.

Abd: Never mind.

Privacy policy, as you see it[edit]

Moulton, would you mind opening a new section on the CR talk page that lays out your arguments for why you believe that the current privacy policy supports your use of "real" names as opposed to pseudonyms in the context of your ethics projects? I think that would be helpful in bringing some clarity to the issues.

Also, I don't mean to cramp your style, but you're still at or near the word limit for the comments, and the review is really only just starting to gain momentum (and I assume you'll have more to say as more people weigh in). --SB_Johnny talk 18:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • OK. I was trying figure out how to respond to everyone in the limited space available, short of writing an off-wiki ballad or something. —Moulton 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think the idea is to use the talk page for threaded discussions, so that in the end the main page will just have a set of different viewpoints on the issue at hand. For prosperity, future reference, time capsuling, or whatev. ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear mediator,[edit]

Given that JWSchmidt has spent 2 years comparing me to Hitler (etc.), I really don't feel obliged to give him the time of day. However, a friend of a friend is at least worth an iota of attention.

I'll commit to answering 3 questions per week, for now. A request on my part to rephrase the question will "count" as an answer, and his rephrased question will "count" as a new question. This is not negotiable, because I'm only vaguely interested, and I'm not at all optimistic that this discussion will be fruitful. If the conversation surprises me and seems worthwhile, I'll answer more than 3 questions. I have no questions of my own at this point. --SB_Johnny talk 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • What I'll propose to do is to try to make the questions as fair and sincere as possible. That's not exactly my long suit, but I'll do my best (perhaps with a little help from my friends in Journalism). —Moulton 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Okey-doke. Please just try not to be offended if I ask to rephrase even if you think you've done a masterful job of winnowing ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It takes a hell of a lot to offend me. As you probably know, the most reliable way to offend me (short of an outright assassination attempt), is to cavalierly subject me to a profound injustice that goes unaddressed and unrectified for 3 1/2 years. —Moulton 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Heh. Moulton, I think I know you well enough to know by now that you're actually very quick to take offense. At least relatively so in relation to other people I know, but I suppose it's possible that my friends are not a good sample. --SB_Johnny talk 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wrong word. I should have said it takes a hell of a lot to arouse my anger. But you probably know better than anyone here what my voice sounds like when my anger is aroused. —Moulton 00:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it takes much to arouse your anger, either, but perhaps there's just something about me that makes you angry (so my experience is not a good sample) :-). OTOH, you know I'm not quick to bite back, for the same reason. --SB_Johnny talk 00:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You are aware of when you or someone with whom you work closely has just pulled an other instance of gross injustice, and so you immediately call me up so that I can vent my anger about it. The other riders of the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse don't even bother to give it a second thought. I suppose they consider it their Divine Right to jerk people around and treat them unjustly on behalf of WMF. —Moulton 01:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, so much for that idea. --SB_Johnny talk 14:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • What's your post-mortem analysis, Coroner? —Montana Mouse 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure[edit]

I'm not exactly a neutral party in the long-festering dispute between SBJ and JWS. The crux of my empathy with JWS (and complementary antipathy toward SBJ) can be found in this post on the Media Ethics blog, which reproduces a key portion of my Wikiversity talk page from that epoch. It's reproduced there (and not here) because until recently that's the only place I could safely post it. —Moulton 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed this?[edit]


What he'd gotten away with over the years was amazing.... but the end comes. Indeffed on Wikipedia, and it was explicitly an ArbComm not-expiring ban. Using his real name. He can't go back and have all the signed edits changed.... They may be able to figure out how to name him Vanished User, which confuses the hell out of people doing ordinary research.... I thought about asking him to contribute here, but he'd rejected that before ... and maybe discretion is the better part of valor. --Abd 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • [Shrug.]Moulton 02:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No compassion? --Abd 02:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Am I supposed to be frightened for him? There was no sign of fear in his last message to me. Just boredom. —Moulton 03:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm suspecting something, Moulton. Empathy Deficiency Anemia. It could explain a lot. No, you are not "supposed to be frightened for him," and I don't know him well enough to anticipate his emotions specifically. But that he might be feeling some seems pretty likely to me. He's not behaving like someone detached, above it all. This was a long-time, experienced user. Almost 36,000 contributions. He just got his user name changed to his real name November 30. Now he's trying to vanish his name on all the projects. You don't sense any emotion there, you don't feel any empathy to what you might suspect? --Abd 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • He's not frightened. He's bored to tears. We've been dialoguing in e-mail for over two months. You can form all the haphazard theories of mind you like. It's really easy if you imitate your colleagues in IDCab and don't bother to gather any reliable evidence. —Moulton 03:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The user and IDCab were closely aligned, AFAIK. IDCab was a very loose collection of editors with a somewhat similar POV on science and pseudoscience, closer to your view, I think, than mine. On Wikipedia, they did everything they could to get me stifled. This little interchange I consider diagnostic as to the Moulton Problem. "Bored to tears" would indicate strong attachment to Wikipedia and disconnection with the Rest of Life. It shows the psychology behind all that activity, how editing a project, pursuing Noble Goals can provide Meaning for a user. "User" becomes an apt name, as with any drug. I know all too well. He'd likely have a complex of emotions, anger at the Stupid ArbComm, a sense of betrayal (what happened to his friends, are they afraid to help him?), determination as he plots how to Keep It Up as an anonymous editor or with socks, and, with it all, a nagging doubt, that there is something crazy about what he's done. He's in withdrawal, and may he find peace and security as he leaves the drama behind and turns to his budding career.
Moulton, now that you have completed your own Demonstration of Lunatic Psychodrama here, let me respectfully suggest that you avoid using this account and this page for anything that would then require revision deletion, anything that would require that Talk page access be cut off, because if you do want to make any lasting contributions to Wikiversity, it would be helpful if there is a way of verifying your identity or openly communicating with you. Thanks for considering this. --Abd 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Have I ever stifled you? Did I not give you maximum exposure and air time, even on my own personal blog? I may not agree with most of what you say, but I will defend to the deathblock your unalienable right to say it over and over and over and over, until even you are sick to death of saying it over and over and over. So feel free to imitate the worst behaviors of the allied editors of IDCab, if it pleases you to adopt and emulate their baletocratic ethic. —Moulton 14:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


You have been blocked for disregarding the privacy policy and the previous agreement to refer people by their chosen pseudonym until a "meeting of the minds" is established. -- darklama  11:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for participating in our illustration of banal lunatic psychodrama. We needed someone to play the Bilious the Kid with the tin badge and toy banhammer, and I am thrilled that you stepped up to play the role. You were mahvelous. Simply mahvelous. —Montana Mouse 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The playwright wrote the play, but this was a performance where the audience-cast mysteriously refused to cough up someone to play, not Bilious the Kid -- this is the closing speech of a character in the play -- but the straight sheriff, who restores order so that the citizens can go home with a sense of security. "Sheriff" I have idiosyncratically derived from "Sharif," the Arabic, someone of noble descent and social respect. Attending this performance led me to many realizations, among them respect for The Kid (I don't actually know his or her age, but this nickname might stick, regardless of it). Thanks to all for playing their roles. Don't let the roles go to your head. This was all a set-up, a play, designed by a highly experienced troll, working with the most difficult of WMF audiences, Wikiversity. We each chose the role to play, so let's let the lessons sink in, it will take time.
Or is this one of those plays with a surprise ending? New actors rush in with funny hats and cap pistols and arrest everyone for Failure to Applaud or Being a Bad Audience or General Incompetence? They shut down the theater and tear the building down for being a Public Nuisance? The theater is flooded with laughing gas? While this might sound like fun, it would also sound more and more like a nightmare that never ends. If that's what the Playwright has in mind, let me say that there are reasons why some people don't support the theatrical arts.... --Abd 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block has been extended to include #wikiversity for disregarding the privacy policy there. -- darklama  23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Billy, please do not use the passive voice. I expect you to take personal responsibility for your intentional and conscientious exercise of administrative power over others. The correct grammar is to write, "I have exercised my authority to extend my administrative block against you for the following reasons ..." (fill in the details).
Also, just so you will know, I have consulted not only with Matthew Goodwin, but also with Rosalind Picard, both of whom are advising me on best practices for handling your situation. I have also contacted Lisa Rand and Hope Straughan at Wheelock College as well. I'll let you know what their recommendations are, as well.
Barry Kort, Ph.D.
Visiting Scientist
Affective Computing Research Group
MIT Media Lab
Moulton 01:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I exercised the Wikiversity community's authority to block you as outlined in the privacy policy, which authorizes Custodians to block any person that is not responsible enough to respect the privacy of other people. I also exercised the authority of channel operators, which authorizes channel operators to due whatever the channel founders/owners decides are the rules for the channel. I believe that authority currently includes, the right to block anyone that violates Wikiversity policy while in the irc channel. I am responsible for my actions, however my wiki actions are also the responsibility of the Wikiversity community to decide if what I do/did is appropriate or not, and my irc actions are also the responsibility of the channel founders/owners to decide if what I do/did is appropriate or not. Just as you are responsible for your actions and the Wikiversity community is responsible for deciding if what you do/did is appropriate or not. -- darklama  02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Billy, the Privacy Policy which you voted to ratify says the following:

Living people

Wikiversity is open to research projects, but Wikiversity research policy explicitly calls for high ethical standards. Part of research ethics is protecting the privacy of people who are the subject of your research.

You are accountable and responsible for what you write about living people. If a person feels their reputation was negatively affected by what you wrote about them, you could be liable. Anonymity does not protect against liability claims. The reputation you save by checking facts and claims about living people might be your own.

Billy, in the paragraph above, you wrote a judgment about an identifiable living person (namely me) in which you adjudge me to be an irresponsible person, notwithstanding the fact that I have been responding promptly to those who wished to level complaints against me. Now I assert that you have seriously damaged my reputation, and the reputation of Wikiversity by falsely accusing me of being an irresponsible person, and I demand that you now stand trial to defend your actions before an impartial jury convened to adjudge if you acted properly both in taking precipitous and unilateral action against me and in denying me a fair opportunity to challenge those who saw fit to level their specious charges against me in the first place.
Moulton 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You may have responded promptly to complaints, but you responded with no respect for the privacy of the people you addressed as required by the privacy policy. I cannot make the Wikiversity community do anything. The Wikiversity community is responsible for deciding whether to acknowledge, listen to, consider, and act on your demand or not. -- darklama  13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The local privacy policy expressly states that those who compose and publish biographical sketches of living people are not entitled to anonymity, full stop. It is a violation of WMF Policy to publish false and defamatory characterizations of living people, and the WMF Whistleblower Policy expressly protects those who call fouls on WMF authors who automatically abandon their claims to anonymity by crafting and publishing false and defamatory characterizations of living persons. I charge you with aiding and abetting a WMF author who is in violation of WMF Policy regarding the publication of biographical sketches of identifiable living people, and that you are further in violation of the WMF Whistleblower Policy by failing to protect me from reprisals by those WMF functionaries who are being called out on a serious foul that borders on character assassination and libel in the pages of these projects. —Moulton 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You need to present the charges to the WMF for them to address in that case. -- darklama  14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why would I escalate three levels? The standard protocol is to work the problem at the level where it arose first. If that fails, one escalates to the next level above. That would be your mentoring supervisor, SBJ. If SBJ doesn't respond, then I escalate to his immediate supervisor. And that's where I am today. —Moulton 15:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


  • "I believe that authority currently includes, the right to block anyone that violates Wikiversity policy while in the irc channel." —Darklama

Billy, if you extend the terms of the English Wikiversity Privacy Policy to apply to both the #wikiversity nexus channel and the #wikiversity-en channel, then it occurs to me that the Living People clause would logically be interpreted to read as follows:

Living people

Wikiversity is open to research projects, but Wikiversity research policy explicitly calls for high ethical standards. Part of research ethics is protecting the privacy of people who are the subject of your research.

You are accountable and responsible for what you write about living people (whether you write it in the English Wikiversity or in the associated IRC channels, #wikiversity and #wikiversity-en). If a person feels their reputation was negatively affected by what you wrote about them (either on-wiki or in IRC), you could be liable. Anonymity does not protect against liability claims. The reputation you save by checking facts and claims about living people might be your own.

Billy, do you agree that your expanded interpretation of the scope of the English Wikiversity Privacy Policy to include the IRC channels means that anything said in IRC is deemed, per Wikiversity Community Policy, to be potentially actionable and that anonymity or pseudonymity affords no personal protection from liability for actionable instances of libel or character assassination. Moreover, do you concur that the requirement spelled out in the Privacy Policy to adhere to high ethical standards automatically extends to conduct in IRC?

Moulton 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a reasonable interpretation of how the Wikiversity Privacy Policy might apply to the IRC channels. Any service hosted by one or more persons that decide the Wikiversity Privacy Policy applies may reasonably interpret the Wikiversity Privacy policy in a similar way. The hosts decide to what extend any policy applies to a service. I do not know if the hosts require people to adhere to high ethical standards while in the IRC channels. -- darklama  13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There are multiple Wikiversity sites in multiple languages. Do you arrogate to yourself the autocratic power to dictate that your idiosyncratic interpretation of the local policy on the the English Wikipedia now extends to an IRC channel shared by all the multi-language Wikiversity projects? Did you consult with your mentor, who is responsible to ensure that you learned how to properly discharge your duties as a responsible and accountable Administrative Custodian, in accordance with generally accepted guidelines for all WMF functionaries? —Moulton 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Scream of a Bilious Kid[edit]

Slime and Punishment
Ottavion Abdomovich Darkolnikov is a young ex-student of letters, law, and blood lust living in extreme ennui in a dank basement in Darkansas. He lives in a tiny backwater where he rants, although due to a lack of fun has been avoiding learning for quite some time (he claims the gloom aggravates his repression). He acts like a grouch using old papers as a dildofap, and due to lack of motivation studies very rarely, although the neighbors sometimes send their sockpuppets into his quarters with food for thought. He is frequently referred to as a former student because he doesn't have the desire to finish his education. Spiritually, physically (due to lack of outdoor exercise) and emotionally distressed, his behaviour in public becomes progressively more erratic through the drama as madness gradually consumes him. Darkolnikov fluctuates between extremes of altruism and inexplicable antipathy. He is described by his acquaintances as "darkly pallid" and many other observers in the basement state that he is very intelligent, but tragically misguided.

In The Crime of the Ancient Mariner, Darkolnikov kiboshes an Albatross with a banhammer he keeps in the janitor's hall closet, with the intention of baleting its cries for good cause, based on a theory he had developed of the "bad actor" (often misunderstood as similar to the Übertroll of Kitsche [dubious – discuss]).

In one famous rant, Darkolnikov cries out, "Good Goat! Can it be, can it be, that I shall ritually take a toy banhammer, that I shall strike the Albatross on the block, split its skull asunder ... that I shall tread in the icky dark slum, break the peace, steal and tremble; hide, all spattered in the crud ... with the toy banhammer ... Good Goat, can it be?"

[Source: "The Scream of a Bilious Kid" by Fyodor Moultonevsky]

The Scarlet Letter Templates[edit]

Moulton, TCNSV blanked your user page and replaced it with a blocked user template. You reverted, as would be predicted, I consider TCNSV's edit to have been gratuitously offensive. But the template itself is appropriate. You are a blocked user, and, I suspect, you wear that as a badge of honor, not a badge of shame. So I replaced the template, while leaving you your talk page content, visible. You reverted and replaced with a pseudo-template claiming that I'd marked your page with a "Scarlet Letter of shame and humiliation." No, it's just a notice that you have been indef blocked. You have not been banned, per se. Being blocked is not shameful, in itself. Are you ashamed? And are you humiliated? If so, not by that template!

With the blocked editor template removed, the "marking" wasn't effective. With it in, then, your pseudo-template has immediate and visible meaning, to the extent that it's true.

I have replaced your pseudo-template under the real one. If that's the message you want people to see, when they first read your page, leave it there, it's fine with me. Meanwhile, I hope you can begin to enjoy other activities, and you remain welcome to contribute to Wikiversity, subject to the restrictions that you made necessary, and very obviously sought. I hope they serve you and the community. I intend to, as before, revert most of your contributions, but only so that they may be reviewed for appropriateness. I'm not the ultimate arbiter of that. Good luck. --Abd 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Were you offended by TCNSV? He's just playing his chosen role in our Dostoevskian drama. By letting people play, we allow them to reveal their true nature, their true underlying character. How else can we possibly get reliable data upon which to build a accurate character models? —Moulton 16:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, Moulton, but the purpose of Wikiversity is not the building of "accurate character models." Whenever that is done in an academic institution, as part of the educational process, it is done with extensive and strict ethical guidelines, i.e., protecting subjects of research. Was I offended? Sure, because, believe it or not, my purpose has not been to build an "accurate character model of you," you are quite predictable already, in certain ways, and I'm offended when I see people being treated like caged bears, where the crowd takes pleasure at poking them with sticks. Maybe the bear should be in a cage (though, really, the bear is free and we are in a cage, to protect us, but that's a totally separate issue. People, like bears, should be treated with respect. --Abd 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it fair to conclude that you are offended by the construction of accurate character models? —Moulton 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No, not fair. Accurate character models are very useful. However, creating them by poking human subjects to see how they respond is highly offensive. Natural situations may provide enough information.
There are exceptions. Testing a character model with an action that is, in itself, not provocative, and is useful, but a possible character model predicts an extreme and dysfunctional response, may be acceptable under some circumstances, where it is necessary to make a problem, otherwise difficult to address and show, visible enough to be fixed. Tricky. One must be prepared to pay the price. Handle with caution! If you want an example, I'll give it.
Moulton, you have been too personally involved to study this in an academic fashion. If you could find a way to personally detach, you might actually be able to accomplish something here. Otherwise, the necessary studies will be done by someone else. --Abd 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton apparently removed the blocked user template again. I don't know why Moulton is not editing this page as Moulton, I presume he'd let us know if the IP wasn't him. Moulton is not blocked from editing his user page. Not yet, anyway.
  • This is not a complaint about his removal of the template. I don't think the template is important enough to justify action over this. I just think Moulton is being silly, but, after all, he's Herr Professor of Silliness. The edit window already warns users that he's blocked. Maybe that's enough. --Abd 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated review of noise analysis from Britz[edit]

He did correct the formula as you suggested, which makes it applicable ongoing, not just at t=0. No change in the conclusions. --Abd 19:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, applause![edit]

Seriously. A few hours after you are blocked, and I start the more selective version of Whack-a-mole than previously defined, the quality of your discourse, the value -- IMHO -- of the issues you are raising, has dramatically improved.

That's a surprising experimental result. It's not hard to come up with explanations, but I don't want to get stuck on any particular one. I'm just noticing it. I think some kinds of thinkers might be experiencing a little cognitive dissonance here. You seem to be doing a good job at explaining part of this.

"and don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin, and there's no tellin' who that it's namin'. For the loser now will be later to win, for the times, they are a-changin'."

Bad grammar, but damn, that kid could write! --Abd 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The quality of his discourse hasn't changed, actually. I think the difference is that you've made it a point to actually read what he says and think about it (as part of your funny little process of reverting and then considering whether or not to restore).
Better song for you old guys here: --SB_Johnny talk 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, SBJ, and the fact that you don't see a shift doesn't mean that there isn't one. I've been reading his stuff carefully for a year. He's back to more what he was like before Ottava unblocked him, and he got bored with debating with me at cold fusion and all over the net, on that one. Further, my process only involves pages that Moulton relatively rarely posts to, compared to the one's I'm considering generally okay, so I've only considered and reverted back in two posts, now. (There are some more removed today, and maybe someone else should revert back in, if anyone wants his participation that. Strangely enough, I can get more flak for restoring than for removing. Set aside and except from this anything that uses real names in an offensive way, anywhere. --Abd 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the only productive conversations I've had in the last 24 hours were the ones I had with Leigh Blackall. —Moulton 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've had productive conversations related to work, but otherwise good ones with past influences (because I stumbled across youtube renditions of one of my favorite bands, linked above). A few old lines to share with you and your bud Abd (I assume the members of the anarchist band wouldn't mind):
Unnoticed all this in your lusting after death,
How determined that your darkness should be shared.
Unnoticed in your blindness this miracle of breath,
What element of beauty attracts your cruel desire?
Would you see the burning? Is that your delight?
Would you have me see it in your stead?
Would you feel my yearning? Peace, life light,
Body, breath. Would you take all this?
Very melodramatic, of course, but pretty much relays my opinion of you two and your games. I think learning and sharing is fun, but maybe I should find a community where neither of you is around? --SB_Johnny talk 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is worse, SBJ, long posts or posts of substantial length that are unclear, of vague meaning, while implying something negative? "Lusting after death?" "Your darkness?" "Cruel desire?" Yes, melodramatic, and if that's what it takes to "rely your opinion," perhaps your opinion is also melodramatic? That would make sense to me! --Abd 16:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand nihilism. To my mind, it's the antithesis of creativity. But one thing is worth noting here, SBJ. Several of the most nihilistic characters here abruptly resigned their power bits and departed, presumably to return in earnest to their academic studies. I doubt we'll ever really know the reasons why, but I hit them as hard as I could with custom-crafted musical comedies, ballads, and short stories. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, or perhaps I really am learning how to custom design a magic key to fit just one singular enigmatic lock. Can you think of a reliable way to test that novel hypothesis? —Moulton 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what is the hypothesis you're asking about? --SB_Johnny talk 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was the music, Moulton. With Adambro, the last straw may have been my comment about his being involved and not the best person, then, to immediately reblock you after Ottava unblocked. You were not being currently disruptive, at that time, his action was, thus, excessive. I and most people believed you should be given a chance to contain yourself, and you did fairly well for quite a while. So, lately, a little glitch? Nobody's perfect. Adambro might come back, he's certainly welcome as far as I'm concerned.
  • Remind me to tell you a story about w:Conner Everts and perfection.
  • With Ottava, the tolerated harassment was apparently the last straw. Ottava, again, might come back, but I hope that he stays away from central process and focuses on educational resources, he's entirely to touchy to manage conflict. Not his strong suit, eh?
  • Bottom line, not the music. But some of the atrocious song parodies are hilarious. It is something you are good at. Or, excuse me, awful at. --Abd 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • To my mind, the most disruptive characters here were the baletocratic admins like you, Hipocrite, Jimbo, Adambro, (and to a lesser extent, Ottava, Mike and the Bilious Kid), who consistently and persistently retarded the progress of the academic community here by collectively converting the project into a phreaking game of Dostoevskian dysfunctionality ranging at times to lunatic scapegoat psychodrama. —Moulton 16:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Darklama, per our discussion this morning on IRC, and per your request to me there, I am reprising here my questions to you regarding your Custodial action of 8 March 2011, in which you unilaterally enacted an infinite block with cause of action specified as "per Wikiversity:Privacy policy and disregard for previous agreement."

In that cause of action, you make reference to a "previous agreement" (between myself and SB Johnny). Based on our conversations this morning on IRC, it is not clear to me that you are aware of the content of that referenced agreement, and the specific conditions under which it would expire and become moot.

Please exhibit here a copy of the agreement between myself and SBJ that you claim to have been breached by me as of 8 March 2011. If you do not have a copy of the actual agreement, please exhibit the information upon which you are relying to determine what you believe to have been the terms of the above referenced agreement.

Moulton 15:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Moulton, the agreement was that you would refrain from using "real names", and you broke it. You either had no intention of keeping to the agreement from the start, or you're unable to stand by your word, or you just don't have self control. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, because what you've taught me is probably not what you wanted to teach me. --SB_Johnny talk 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Our agreement was for the duration of the mediation discussion. On 1 March, Tracy abruptly and unilaterally terminated the mediation, writing, " I have no interest in discussing anything further with you." That terminated the discussion, and thus terminated my associated agreement with you. —Moulton 06:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence anyone actually set about to seriously work on the issues there, in a constructive, conscientious, and responsible manner? —Barsoom Tork 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • A few people seem to be trying to discuss the issues, yes. The edit-warring between you and Abd threw a wrench into the conversation, but hopefully it can get back on track now. --SB_Johnny talk 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Abd's disruption of the discussion was a direct consequence of his considerable skill in manipulating an otherwise inexperienced custodian to enact a questionable block, thereby opening the door for Abd to disrupt the discussion with his idiotic reversions. —Barsoom Tork 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

SB_Johnny's response above suggests he does not agree with your interpretation of the agreement. I believe this means SB_Johnny made a mistake in unblocking you in the first place due to lack of mutual understanding of what the agreement was, and that voids the agreement between SB_Johnny and you as well. -- darklama  13:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Darklama, I believe SBJ may have made an uncorrectable error in judgment in granting you the power to unilaterally exercise your personal will over other scholars here, given your apparent lack of understanding of what it means to keep your solemn promise to refrain from using power tools to enact your personal will in political issues:

Darklama has made it clear to me that he will not be active as a Custodian outside of helping us with technical issues, but we really just need help on the tech side, and I couldn't imagine a more trustworthy person, or one with such enthusiasm for helping solve difficult problems.--SB_Johnny | [[meta:Wikimedia Pennsylvania|PA!]] 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept this nomination on the terms mentioned by SB_Johnny, to help on the tech side of things as best I can and have SB_Johnny as my "mentor". --darkYin yang.svglama 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Darklama, can you explain how and when SBJ released you from the above restriction, and granted you political to enact your will over me? —Moulton 14:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a restriction, it was a statement. Darklama simply wasn't interested in "management-related" topics, in part because he was fairly occupied at Wikibooks and wanted to keep his focus there. The fact that he's stepped up a bit over the last year or so has been quite helpful, since there have been very few active custodians to share the work. --SB_Johnny talk 14:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there some reason Darklama cannot speak with his own voice and explain himself and his rationale to change his mind and his intentions regarding his use of power tools to unilaterally and inexplicably exercise his political will over other scholars here, regarding what subjects we may or may not undertake to study? —Moulton 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That was never a restriction placed on me. I was not and still am not interested in management. If anything I attempted to define conditions agreeable to me and the community, which was that I would be willing to help with technical issues and in exchange the community would not expect me to manage anything. At the time there were enough other active Custodians to deal with management issues. My continued hope is the community will remove the inactive Custodians and will find new people who will be active in management again, so I can back down again. -- darklama  19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I propose we compare the terms negotiated between you and SBJ, quoted above, to your conduct here and here. —Moulton 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


  • "Darklama: you're either a liar, morally bankrupt, or just plain unpredictable." —SBJ

My experience, SBJ, is that everyone is unpredictable in their own idiosyncratic way. Even people who rigorously follow the rules (as in very simple games like Chess, Checkers, or Go) are unpredictable, because you generally cannot predict their upcomings moves, even if they play optimally. I tend to be unpredictable because I routinely seek innovative and novel solutions to complex problems. When I set out to solve a long festering problem, not even I can anticipate what will turn up in research, or what solution will emerge after a thorough analysis. So if I cannot predict what solution I will ultimately discover, how can anyone else? Moulton —06:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • That comment was directed at Moulton, not Darklama. --SB_Johnny talk 13:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm now holding up a mirror and directing the same observation and sentiment to you and Darklama. —Moulton 14:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The Darklama(colon) prefix found in the comment was generated from the software as a result of what's known as an auto-edit summary and can be appropriately found in its proper context here in the original comment by SB_Johnny. You will notice that the "Darklama:" part of the comment has been grayed out, because this is to signify that the comment was inserted directly into the middle of the thread above named "Darklama", which can also be seen in the same diff where SB_Johnny first posted his comment. TeleComNasSprVen 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • To Whom It May Concern: It is customary to prefix a remark with a person's name, so as to disambiguate any confusion as to whom the comment is addressed. In online systems populated both by humans operating avatars and by automated robots, addressing a person by the name they respond to is the standard method of indicating the intended recipient of a comment. This thread is named "Darklama" because that is the name of the character to whom remarks in this thread are addressed. —Barsoom Tork 22:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • However, the thread "Darklama" was so named because Moulton had directed a response to User:Darklama pending his block, and the result was a response to Moulton's comment within the same thread, namely that of SB_Johnny. So it was specifically addressed to Moulton and not Darklama, which caused confusion. TeleComNasSprVen 22:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Confusion is statistically predictable in any learning process, especially when there are participants who are introjecting incorrect or misleading information. However, confusion is not always a bad thing, because it is statistically demonstrated that confusion is the first step toward enlightenment. —Moulton 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The offer and acceptance and consideration[edit]

  • SBJ makes the offer. If you would be willing to refrain from addressing, discussing, or referring to any Wikimedia contributor by anything other than their chosen pseudonym for now, I'll gladly unblock so that you can make your case for a change in policy.
"chosen pseudonym" was probably intended to be "user name" as found in edit histories, but allowing other names by consent.
  • Moulton notes posting of text of agreement on meta.
  • Moulton gives version of agreement on meta.
  • SBJ possibly weakens the agreement as he'd offered it, in some ways, but makes it clear about "real names."
Moulton drove a truck through this with "Death Eater Bitch." It would have been much better for SBJ to stick clearly to the original terms, which Moulton had, in fact, accepted at that point.
  • Moulton asks SBJ to act on the agreement.
  • SBJstates intention to unblock per the agreement, Assuming you're leaving the "real names" out of things at least for the duration of the review, yes, of course.
  • SBJ unblocked. That was an act of consideration, and it was accepted by Moulton, rendering the agreement, by common law, binding. Custodians may be ordinarily presumed to be acting as agents of the community, and that's the best interpretation here. So this was, in effect, an agreement between Moulton and the community, and thus enforceable by any agent of the community.
  • Moulton continued to use real names.
  • Above, Moulton claims that the agreement only covered the mediation with KC.
  • No, the agreement covered all behavior pending "the duration of the review," which is considering policy on the use of names. Besides the options listed by SBJ, above, it's possible that Moulton had the KC review in mind, and lost context.
  • However, SBJ was pointed to new violations, but declined to act.
  • So Darklama acted, similarly informed. The block was proper, requiring no warning, because of the history. -- 16:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)
  • I was unaware that you were listening in on the two or three hour-long telephone conversations between Moulton and SBJ. Do you have the full audio transcript? —Barsoom Tork 17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
When there is a written agreement, it supersedes prior verbal conversation, sometimes even post-hoc conversation, if not reduced to writing. The audio transcript is irrelevant, dicta. If you are going to be a wikilawyer, Moulton -- as you are -- don't be an inept one. -- 17:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)
  • A brief newspaper account about a three-day meeting is not an official record of the meeting. —Barsoom Tork 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. However, it's woefully misapplied here. What I cited wasn't a newspaper account, it was direct signed testimony by both parties, memorializing the agreement, visible to both, but not questioned until later by one of the parties, Moulton. -- 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)

Of interest...[edit]

The whole program is good, of course, but sometime after :40 or :45 they spend the rest of the program on "the prisoners' dilemma". It's worth a listen.

(Was listening to podcasts because my local public radio station was broadcasting the horrible pop-psychology call-in show that is only occasionally interesting). --SB_Johnny talk 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia was supposed to be a collaborative project.

But in the absence of a functional conflict resolution process, it developed a cancerous tumor in the form of competitive editing and competitive strategies to disempower competing editors.

In Game Theory, it is an unsolved problem to convert a Game of Competition into a Game of Cooperation. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the classic introduction to this problem, since it's a game that's delicately balanced on the cusp separating Games of Competition from Games of Cooperation and Collaboration. Getting someone who is a fierce competitor by nature to shift from the Competitive Stance to the Cooperative Stance is equivalent to getting someone to change their religion. It requires an Epiphany. There is no reliable way to midwife the requisite Epiphany.

However, there is a popular way, and that is through the medium of a custom-crafted comic opera. It doesn't always work, but it's a better practice than pissing and moaning about what a dickhead the other guy is.

Source: Wikipedia Review, Tue 12th February 2008, 1:08pm

Moulton, that fancy quote of yours (quoting yourself) doesn't really impress me. The fact that you're quoting yourself is pretty lame, really. Now that you've decided it's appropriate for you to practice psychology (since you've got friends who study it and have googled enough psychology stuff to consider yourself an expert), maybe you could diagnose a person who quotes their own words as authoritative sources?

It's never too late to go back to school, you know. Maybe MIT would give you a discount for taking psychology courses. A few hours a week in a chair surrounded by undergrads might be fun! --SB_Johnny talk 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for a different story, but it's either not there, or it's in a thread that I can no longer read. You can try doing the search logged in if you give a fuck. Which I doubt.
So let me quote someone else, Johhny. Let me quote someone you genuinely care about.
Today I say to you in all sincerity, "Just go fuck yourself and go away... at this point I don't care. I really am that disappointed, but I'm starting to get over it now."
Moulton 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, good. After you are finished getting over it and become interested in contributing to learning projects and such (without getting something in return <hint, hint>), please get in touch. I'm still very clear on what my motivations are, of course. --SB_Johnny talk 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College, which explains Moulton's last edit to User talk:SB_Johnny on meta. See also Montana Mouse. Sad. --Abd 02:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The "confirmation" was revision deleted; a steward intervened at beta. --Abd 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Davichito[edit]

I want to talk to you again. I was unable to find your e-mail on the net so please contact me some way. Davichito (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pages moved[edit]

Barry, certain pages you contributed to were moved, "Skeptical argument" in the page name was changed, to be consistent throughout the cold fusion resource, to "Skeptical arguments." If you linked to these pages off-wiki, those links, after the redirects are deleted, will no longer work. Feel free to contact me by email or by phone, or you can drop an IP note on my Talk page, if you want any redirects restored because they are needed off-wiki. I hope you are well, and thanks for all your contributions on the topic of Cold fusion. You could continue to contribute to the topic, if you wish, through me, or as IP. If you stay on topic, I doubt that anyone would get upset here. If you contribute through me, I can attribute it, and, of course, I'll need to be personally satisfied that it does not violate policy, but I doubt you would do that, right? --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)