User talk:JWSchmidt/2011 discussions

Note: this is an archive of old discussions. Please do not edit this page. Continue these discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt. There are other archives at User talk:JWSchmidt/Discussion archive.

Modern wood stoves
Heya John. I started the stubbiest of stubs, but I was wondering if you might be able to give a very quick and dirty explanation about what the catalytic converter is doing.

Couple questions on that too: the manuals say never to use wood that's not very dry, or things like plywood or painted wood because it might damage the converter. Off the top of your head, can you think of why that would be an issue? (Thinking about what you said about it being pretty much like an automotive converter, which of course burns up petroleum byproducts).

Thanks for your googling earlier... what terms did you use? Like I said, I didn't find anything nearly as useful when I searched. --SB_Johnny talk 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Droplets of moisture clog the micropores in the surface of the catalytic converter and prevents the smoke from getting to the surface of the catalytic converter. You want to "keep your power dry" so that it functions as intended.  You also don't want to have any plastics in your fuel that will coat the surface of your catalytic converter with a layer of crud.  The vapors have to be in direct chemical contact with the metals for the catalytic action to work.  Caprice 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would the droplets cause permanent damage, or just interfere with the secondary combustion while the wet wood is in the chamber? --SB_Johnny talk 16:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the moisture doesn't convey deposits, it will evaporate and all will be well when the surface is once again dry. But if the moisture has minerals in it that are conveyed along with the smoke, then it can leave mineral deposits that build up over time. Check your manual to see if the active surface element can be removed for annual cleaning or eventual replacement.  If not, then the device will gradually lose its ability to function over a period of years.  —Caprice 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the schmutz that would normally be catalyzed would gunk the converter if mixed with water? Does the converter only work when the schmutz is an aerosol, or would it catalyze surface deposits as well? I'm afraid this goes a bit above my head in the chem department.
 * (I'm not sure if you can clean it or not (the instruction model on mine is rather thin, but I suppose I could email). I'm asking more generally in any case.) --SB_Johnny talk 19:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The catalytic converter is supposed to completely oxidize smog components like carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen and sulphur that have not been completely oxidized by the fire in the pit. Any soluble minerals that do not oxidize to gases could end up as ash that coats the surface of the element.  That's the main reason you want dry fuel.  The catalytic converter only works on the smoke, not the solid ash left in the pit.  That's why you don't want wet smoke.  —Caprice 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on Portal:Test
Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/10 requested deletion of some pages you created. You were not apparently notified of this, an oversight, but this was "Not Done" -- I was a custodian at the time. However, do you think the pages should be kept? My earlier decision may have been an error. Is this used somewhere or is it needed as an example of something? I see that McCormack suggested deleting this in early 2008,, and no disagreement appeared, but there was no follow-up. Thanks. --Abd 17:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The original purpose of Portal:Test is mentioned on the discussion page. It was used to make. If someone wanted to modify that learning resource (the image) then they could make use of the page. This is a good example of a situation illustrating that a page doing no harm should not be deleted. --JWSchmidt 15:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you could put it that way. However, it's also a good example of why original authors of pages should be consulted when a page seems apparently useless. I asked you now because I didn't remember that Talk page explanation of the reason for the page, even though I'd seen it before when reviewing an RfD on this set of pages. I certainly agreed, then, it should not be deleted. There were a number of problems with that RfD. First of all, if it was as obvious as imagined, this should have been a speedy deletion tag instead of an RfD. Secondly, the author should have been notified. Third, there should have been a deletion request template placed on the pages, if it was going to be RfD, so that an author would see it, perhaps, on their watchlist. And there was some incaution about the apparent use, there I was, yesterday, wondering why I'd opposed an apparent "consensus" to delete by writing "Not done." Even though I'd clearly researched it,then. (As a custodian, I was one then, remember?)
 * I'm not willing to generalize from that to a principle that harmless pages should never be deleted, unless "harmless" includes not having an appearance of uselessness, because that appearance does cause harm. It's easily fixed, and I'd prefer a "junkyard space" where such harmless stuff would be moved, and findable. Eventually, we might have that. Thanks for the explanation, John. I'm glad I asked. --Abd 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, what about Portal:Testing? That was created by IP a year ago. Someone trying to use Make a Portal? Using an actual portal page instead of the Sandbox? Could this be deleted safely, I'm expecting so, but ... what? --Abd 19:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Portal:Testing looks like it was created as an experiment. Maybe someone else will come along and continue the experiment. --JWSchmidt 20:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandboxes are places for that kind of experimentation. Any registered user can create, as well, their own sandbox. This was an IP user, so there is no userification to be done. My conclusion: I'll tag this for speedy deletion. Thanks for looking at it, your conclusion was the same as mine, except for a possible keep due to value in future experiments, which I don't see. I just wanted to know if there was some special reason for it. --Abd 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello
How are you? I haven't encountered you in my online lifepath lately and was wondering how your endeavours are progressing? Thank you for your contribution to free culture. Respectfully B9hummingbirdhoverin'æ•ω•ॐ 01:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Free learning continues in IRC Freenode #wikiversity-en-projects. Drop in sometime and join us in the joy of collaborative learning. --JWSchmidt 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend this?
Did you intend to remove so much content? If you need any assistance archiving, let me know here (or by email).

You could also easily be unblocked, my opinion, if you would suggest a mentor acceptable to an unblocking custodian, whose judgment on any editing you would respect and strictly follow, who would have the right, explicitly acknowledged by you, to ask for an immediate block (here or at meta or directly to a custodian)(or, if this is a custodian, who could directly block, with your prior consent.) I'd do this for you, if you wanted, or perhaps Erkan Yilmaz would accept?

Is it time to move on? Hey, John, I'm now indeffed on Wikipedia, and you are a sysop there. I've got stories to tell also! Whatever that means. Mostly, it means nothing to those who have not been through the situations, and it just irritates them. Like ArbComm on Wikipedia. --Abd 13:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The key to this plan, should you accept it, is that 'you choose the mentor. I'd have done this in a flash on Wikipedia, and, in fact, when my MYOB ban there passed, it had a mentor exception. No problem. And a highly respected editor volunteered as a mentor. He was told it was useless, because the mentor remedy did not pass, just a remedy that depended on it. And when that MYOB remedy passed, an arb pointed out that this meant a strict ban. Kafka. They made the plan look fair with the mentor exception, then yanked the exception indirectly.

Later, the fellow told me, he decided to run for ArbComm, inspired by my case. Elected, the fellow volunteered again, privately, to the committee, since he was now a member. He told me he was told, no, he couldn't do that, as an arbitrator. Even though he was already recusing on anything involving me. The system was completely stacked. Hidden rules (Whatever We Make Up). They simply wanted to get rid of me, and make it look like a fair decision. Reminds me to write him.... --Abd 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC) "Did you intend to remove so much content?" <-- Yes. This page is a Wikipedia Disease-free zone. "you choose the mentor" <-- I would be happy to mentor SBJ on how to be a Custodian, but I've seen no evidence that he wants to play that role. --JWSchmidt 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay, John, I was just asking about the content. As to the rest, it's preposterous bluster. Regardless, your choice. You can see part of my response to Wikipedia administrative actions at User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits, which at this point is mostly about my actions, but there are other examples I'll be filling in. So far, self-reversion is working, better than I expected. It has been far easier than complaining, see Jujitsu, and much more fun. "To live outside the law, you must be honest." Which doesn't necessarily mean honesty in words, but in deeds. I'm not disclosing all that I'm doing, this is, in effect, war against repression and censorship, so there are covert aspects. Now, JWS, you can join or support the forces of liberation, or you can continue to shoot your mouth off to no effect. Again, your choice. Compared to Wikipedia, where you are still an administrator, Wikiversity is a haven of sanity and calm and collaborative work, and I intend to keep it that way. You can see, in what I linked, a very limited usage of Wikiversity in this cause. It is not disruptive, it does not criticize editors, and, indeed, I'm not carrying an assumption that they are "wrong." If they are truly interested in a neutral project, they may ultimately applaud what I'm doing. And if not, they will bury themselves in their own confusion. Or nothing will happen. That's often the outcome, you know. Nothing. Nothing isn't a bad outcome, it can be rather nice. Good luck. --Abd 15:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Abd, maybe some day you can make a section of the Main Page that explains the role of "self-reversion" in collaborative learning. Until the day when the Ruling Party ends censorship of Wikiversity, we'll have to settle for incorporating absurdities like the practice of "self-reversion" into "Wikiversity: The Movie". I'm sure that the Wikimedia Foundation appreciates such publicity. --JWSchmidt 13:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-reversion is only necessary because of the shortcomings of the software. Rather, on mailing lists, there are typically three classes of users: moderators, regular members, and moderated members. I've proposed for some purposes, on mailing lists, that many regular members be made a special class of moderator, with the right to approve posts of moderated members. But even on lists without that, a regular member may forward a post by a moderated member, or anyone, for that matter (there are really two other classes, non-members and banned former members).
 * In standard formal meeting process, no motion will be considered, open for discussion, unless seconded. Members may be ruled out of order, and even ejected from a meeting, but this does not result in expulsion from the organization, that takes a special action, by motion, and bylaws typically require supermajority for expulsion. And yet, even for an expelled member, a motion can be brought to the floor by any member that originated with the expelled person. Whether or not that is mentioned is a matter of political expediency, not the rules, which would never forbid that. Not in any democratic organization that is following democratic traditions and standard democratic process.
 * All meetings, in functional organizations, follow rules that allow for orderly process. Sometimes organizations set up rules that damage the process, but standard deliberative process provides quite adequate protection for minority opinion without allowing it to dominate, as long as even a few active members understand standard rules and use them, and as long as the majority don't reject that. The majority can wreck any organization. There is no defense against the stupidity of a majority except to leave and form another organization.
 * Self-reversion seems absurd, I grant that. Why should one revert a perfectly good edit? But there is an answer to that question.
 * Because it completely bypasses the claim that the user's contributions are disruptive, requiring -- and thus wasting -- the time of everyone else. Self-reverted edits can be (almost) completely ignored. Nobody needs to discuss them. They exist only in history, unless someone "seconds the motion." Then and only then are they "on the floor" -- or, in a wiki, in the product pending some other action.
 * Ultimately, this is my argument about self-reversion: it works. I invented it and proposed it in a situation where it was rejected, not by the community, but by the editor who was making "harmless edits" under ban. I'd seen one of these. It had been reverted by another editor, based on the ban. I reverted the removal of the spelling correction involved, and was taken to Arbitration Enforcement over it. See, the second editor was actually an ally of the first, trying to make a point about how abusive the ban was. So I invented self-reversion, because self-reversion does *not* complicate a ban. It's the user, himself or herself, enforcing the ban. Self-reversion was not tried by the first editor, and he was site-banned for three months for his attempted disruption, he'd been quite open about what he was doing, and his goal was the humiliation of the admins who blocked him. Problem was, nobody was blocking him for spelling corrections, so he escalated, using other devices. He got an arb's permission to edit an article that was under ban, with a specific edit. He made the edit and was blocked. Then he revealed the arb's permission.... He was setting traps. And it all came out.
 * If I used self-reversion that way, I'd be whacked, legitimately. But I'm not. The only thing wrong with my edits on Wikipedia, now, is that all of them are block evasion and some also evade a ban. Yes, there is an effect: the insanity of "a ban is a ban" is being revealed, by clear historical evidence.
 * Self-reversion was first tested with PJHaseldine, who had been topic-banned. The ban was actually a bit abusive, though not commpletely unreasonable. He picked up the idea, he'd been despondent and this gave him a ray of hope. He used it, and it worked. He was able to cooperate with the very editor who had proposed his ban -- and who was a problem himself, that's one of the problems with Wikipedia, is it tends to decide which side of a dispute is worse, or even doesn't care about the balance, it just bans the first one where process is initiated and the editor has made mistakes.
 * Self-reversion was deprecated on Wikipedia only when I used it, once. Then, suddenly, an idea that had some support became anathema. It was because it was Abd's idea, pretty clearly. PJHaseldine was advised to avoid it, and he then did. And was then indef blocked for a rather minor, technical ban violation. Expert in his field, notable, in fact.
 * MediaWiki software allows for flagged revisions, which basically means that editors make what amount to proposed edits, and users of a certain class may review and accept them. Self-reversion allows implementation of that on a wiki without flagged revisions.
 * It is not for everyone, only for those blocked or banned users who are willing to respect the right of the community to control speech, but who wish, still, to make constructive contributions, because using self-reversion only to blame and complain may be more or less harmless, but will also be a waste of time for the user. (And if, for example, I were to use self-reversion to insult and attack Wikipedia admins on their talk pages, to endlessly distract them, I'd lose legitimacy and would properly be blocked.)
 * What self-reversion demonstrates in an abusive context is the abuse, that is punitive, not protective.
 * John, let abusive admins reveal their abuse. They cannot actually harm you, you are not bound in the closet, you are free. If you were to take on self-reversion, and demonstrate with those edits your positive contributions, using your own self-discipline to avoid unnecessary mess, you'd be unblocked quickly, I'm certain. You could also be unblocked quickly if you would agree to certain behavioral restrictions or safeguards. These do not require that you admit any error. (Often admins want to see admission of error, but if an editor doesn't believe that the editor made any mistake, it obviously fails, and admins will be fooled by an editor who pretends to admit error, insincerely. Don't admit error unless you see it! But you can promise, if you are capable of it, to avoid offense, which means offending *them*.
 * What happened with me on Wikipedia was that for two years I promised to avoid offense, and was careful, and found that the restrictions became ever tighter and tighter, so I was better off -- and freer -- being blocked and acting without such restraints. With self-reversion, now, I am proposing good edits. I'm still being sanctioned for it, efforts are being made to prevent it, and all that this is doing is showing that the enforcement does more damage than tolerance of self-reversion, which cannot be prevented.
 * Self-reversion demonstrates the acceptability of my edits, when another editor reverts them back in. If I just made the edits, there would be no such review, and the claim of disruption can still be made with a straight face. What's been happening, so far-- there is only a little evidence yet, as you can see -- is that it seems to me easier to get text into the Cold fusion article than it was when I could edit it freely.
 * Editing by IP has been called "socking," but it's not, if there is no pretense that the edits are not the blocked editor, if they identify themselves. The user agreement does not obligate users to log in, and a log-in requirement would never fly until and unless there is a real-identity requirement.
 * John, why not just start working on educational resources. If you make a self-reverted edit by IP -- or any edit, really -- link to it here and I'll look at it. If you make disruptive edits, I'd revert them if you haven't. But if you make decent edits "evading the block," I'd accept the edits, reverting them back in if you have self-reverted. If you haven't self-reverted, but you acknowledge the edits, I might revert them, as I did with Moulton edits, allowing some time for review, then revert them back in. You make it all easier and more straightforward if you self-revert.
 * I don't care if you "evade a block," as long as you do so non-disruptively. Make work for others, that's a form of disruption.
 * Self-reversion is a new idea, relatively, and there are kinks to work out, some of them have appeared in the various trials. I have written policy on it, which was rejected last year, but those who rejected it are gone. It will come back, so that people can know what to expect.
 * What you could expect if the policy is accepted is that no editor would be sanctioned for self-reverted edits, as long as they don't create problems requiring revision deletion. I.e., they are that disruptive! Pages would not be protected because of self-reverted IP edits unless they constitute a flood. IP would not be blocked because of any self-reverted edit that was not grossly offensive, and, John, I've never seen a grossly offensive edit from you.
 * Self-reverted edits should be documented, making review easy, and this then can be an evidentiary basis for unblock: a demonstration of cooperative, collaborative behavior.
 * Thekohser used self-reversion here, and, with my collaboration, it worked. Without that basis, I doubt that I could have managed it, there were too many people who would have pointed to the problems, without a balancing weight from evidence of positive contributions -- this was the claim, that he was only here for disruption and raising a fuss.
 * The biggest problem with self-reversion is that the edits might not be noticed and reviewed. If this is due to a history of the editor making useless edits, nobody wants to look, that, then, is a natural consequence of the editor's prior behavior. It can be overcome. But I'm also interested in self-reversion for the principles involved, so if I know that self-reverted edits are being made, I'll make a point of looking at them, as can any editor. You can also make self-reverted edits to talk pages asking for review, or non-self-reverted edits to any editor who has explicitly accepted that from you. A mature policy would cover that.
 * Good luck. --Abd 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity Assembly
This may seem crazy at first, but please allow me a moment of your time.

JWS, I'd like you to reflect on some possibilities.
 * A Wikiversity Assembly, which could also incorporate off-wiki features and communication, and using delegable proxy, could provide a relatively rapid method of finding broad consensus, thus allowing the community to respond better when in crisis.
 * The goal of the Assembly is to find consensus on any deliberated issue.
 * You were a major founder of Wikiversity.
 * If the Assembly were functioning, your original vision of a fully collaborative learning community could be more realizable, and it might have been easier to address problems in the past more efficiently and more effectively.
 * You could be unblocked and participate if you would agree to some simple behavioral restrictions that would satisfy those in the community who were disturbed by your prior activity. This comment is not a criticism of the prior activity. It was what it was.
 * I specifically invite you to participate, in one of two ways:
 * You do what it takes to become unblocked (I can assist) and volunteer as clerk for the Assembly. I'd love to turn that job over. We can discuss what would be involved.
 * You name a proxy here, it could be any registered user, and there is one in particular whom you have often mentioned as trustworthy. As far as I'm concerned, even though you are currently blocked, you are still a member of this community. If you do name a proxy here, I will add your information, as a clerk for the Delegable proxy table.

Discussion

 * I hope you will consider this, and, in any case, hope that your work is productive and satisfying. --Abd 16:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I specifically invite you to participate <-- Unfortunately, the demiGodKing, or his boss, decided that I cannot participate at Wikiversity.


 * some simple behavioral restrictions <-- The only "behavioral restrictions" I know of are defined by Wikiversity policy, which I have never violated. If it was possible to get rid of the demiGodKing and his fellow policy-violators then Wikiversity might become worth thinking about again.


 * hope that your work is productive and satisfying <-- Working at an educational institution is always fun for a nerd like me. We got through the first year of our reorganized curriculum and it is satisfying to complete such a long-planned and complex change. With any luck, we will be able to verify that the changes have improved the educational process. --JWSchmidt 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! As to Wikiversity, my considered opinion is that you are laboring under certain illusions, such as your idea of who runs this place. Those illusions are preventing you from seeing certain real possibilities. Pretty common, actually, as a human trait.
 * I could push the unblock button in a flash, if I were convinced that the result would not be disruptive, for you were not banned. And "disruptive" isn't my personal judgment, it's what actually happens in a real human society, and I hold those buttons as a servant of the community, not my own opinion. I'm not interested in debating this, actually, I'm offering you several opportunities that might help you realize your original vision of Wikiversity, or something even better. If you want to hold on to the past, that's your privilege, I won't stop you. Your call.
 * However, I'm watching, and hoping that you will, some day, perhaps some day soon, decide on a transformative path instead of one that traps you in Moulton's ancient hall closet. So to speak. (I have no idea that you are actually trapped, really, you are free, and I'm the one stuck here dealing with vandalism, spammers, and massive disorganization. But I'm not complaining. I happen to believe Wikiversity is worth it, and I'm thanking you for the work you did to start this place. Now what? --Abd 00:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

laboring under certain illusions <-- Since the demiGodKing has a penchant for making decisions in secret, off wiki, I'm sure that I do not know the whole story, but that hardly amounts to "illusions". help you realize your original vision of Wikiversity <-- That "vision" does not include misguided people who disrupt the Wikiversity community by playing with their tiny banhammers. Now what? <-- A good start would be to remove the absurdly disruptive blocks that have been imposed on Wikiversity community members, but there seems to be nobody left at Wikiversity who cares to do what should be done to end the hostile takeover. --68.109.171.128 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My Wikiversity vision is radically inclusive, so, yes, it includes people whom you might think disruptive, just as it includes people whom others might think disruptive. It does require, however, ultimately, that those who act disruptively be prevented from continuing that. There is a knotty problem here, John, and I don't get that you understand it. It's about functional structure. You ran square into dysfunctional structure, and you don't recognize, I suspect, that you created this structure. The structure can be fixed, but until it is, certain problems will persist. Until you take responsibility for yourself and what you have created, it's unlikely that you will be able to move on. That's just the way it is, John. I can't change that.
 * The individual to whom you uncivilly referred attempted to shoot down my custodianship. He failed to accomplish that, I'm still a custodian, in a rather new status, "permanent probation," which I find really funny, since the restrictions that exist on me from being probationary are really restrictions that I'd propose, for the most part, for every custodian.
 * I'd unblock you if you demonstrated that you were not going to cause further disruption. Your response to the positive invitation extended above indicates to me that your position has not shifted. That's your right and privilege, but it does mean that if I unblocked you, under these conditions, I'd probably lose my bit, thus accomplishing, by my own action, what the fellow you mention could not accomplish. How about you ask Geoff Plourde? He seems inclined to take risks, but he did already try once with you. Consider how you repaid him.
 * One more point here. You were invited to participate in the Wikiversity Assembly. In inviting you, I did consider how you could participate even while blocked. If you accept the invitation, I'd make it happen, non-disruptively. You remain a valued member of the Wikiversity community, to me, if you wish it so. --Abd 18:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you created this structure <-- I never created the "structure" that allows policy violators from Wikipedia to disrupt Wikiversity. You arrived late at Wikiversity and, rather than learn the history of the project, you continue to make statements that are impossible for me to take seriously. "take responsibility for yourself" <-- Make a list of what you imagine I am responsible for. "cause further disruption" <-- You seem to be accusing me of causing disruption. Describe the "disruption" that I have caused. "your position has not shifted" <-- Explain why I should shift my position. Without me there would be no Wikiversity. I stand up to the people who disrupt this project. "Consider how you repaid him" <-- What do you mean by that? "if you wish it so" <-- If I wish what? --JWSchmidt 01:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never created the "structure." Sure you did. You and the rest of the community when Wikiversity was started up. "Structure" here includes "lack of structure." There was a point where you'd have been a 'crat, all you had to do was accept the nomination. It seems to me that you did not see the danger. Look, most people didn't. I did, because I'd been working with organizations and organizational concepts for decades. At about that time I was trying to convince Wikipedians that they needed more efficient decision-making structure ("efficient" here means more effective in rapidly finding true consensus even when the community becomes large). You can see how that went with w:WP:PRX, which was proposed by someone who'd realized that the delegable proxy concept -- he'd learned it from me -- could work, if tried. He was promptly blocked. Indef for a user with a clean block record. Lesson: if you mess with structure, you are the enemy. Later, it also became clear to me that if you mess with administrative misbehavior, behavior that was contrary to "policy," you are also the enemy.
 * What you are responsible for is Wikiversity, the way it operates. You were a founder, you put this place together. With others, of course. You are responsible for what you did not do, as well as what you did. Indeed, you confirm this with Without me there would be no Wikiversity.
 * But.... I stand up to people who disrupt the project. No, you don't. You wave your hands and wag your tongue ineffectually at them, you think that you can change their behavior by telling them they are bad. Tell me, how's that working for you? Does it work? Did you doing this protect Wikiversity?
 * Disruption. Starting and continuing long tirades repeating, more or less, the same thing, over and over, is disruptive. It's disruptive if you do it, it's disruptive if I do it, it's disruptive if anyone does it. Using sarcasm to attack the behavior of others is disruptive. Refusing to respect requests to change behavior, even when they are specific and easily followed, is disruptive. Disruption is not "bad." Sometimes disruption is necessary, but ... it's still disruption. Look, if you are at a formal faculty meeting where standard rules are being followed (such as Robert's Rules of Order), and you refuse to stop talking when the chair orders it, you are being disruptive and you can be escorted from the room. It doesn't matter if what you are saying is right or wrong. It's disruptive. There is procedure to use if you need to make a point or raise an issue. If you just barge ahead, you'll be expelled by the sergeant-at-arms. The larger the organization, the more important these rules become, because large organizations become paralyzed without them.
 * As long as you thought of Wikiversity as this small happy family, this peaceful "collaborative community," where people would be helpful and cooperative, naturally, with no need for structure, you were vulnerable to what happened. Wikiversity did not belong to you and your friends unless you made it so. To do that within the WMF overall structure required sound local process and a community to maintain it. Otherwise the default processes of WMF wikis will operate, and those processes give power to those who have different agendas.
 * This is not just Wikiversity's problem. It's really the same for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is merely much larger. The default wiki process becomes highly vulnerable to domination by factions, and what I might call the "wiki tribalists," those pursuing the original wiki vision, are outmaneuvered at every turn, and they leave, frustrated, if they aren't banned.
 * There is a way beyond this, if a few users see it and work for it. It's happening, and, my opinion, it's not stoppable without truly baring the fangs. I don't think that will happen, the WMF has too much at stake. It will cooperate, because it will benefit from the cooperation, and enough elements within the WMF will see the opportunity. An awake, intelligently organized community will be much easier to work with. Or else the WMF will essentially wither away, but I don't expect that.
 * Make a list of what you imagine I am responsible for. That one is easy. Special:Contributions/JWSchmidt. Every edit.
 * But you are also responsible for what you could have done, but did not do. That cannot be listed. You are responsible for failing to understand and handle the political situation with Wikiversity and the "outsiders."
 * There is so much you could learn, John, if you would be teachable. Don't tell me you are too old, okay? I'm 67, and I have to put up and shut up every week, so that I can learn from what I'm being told. Being "right" is poison. I can tell myself a thousand times that I'm right, and it does no good for me or anyone else.
 * Explain why I should shift my position. Sure. Glad you asked. Your position makes you into a victim. It disempowers you. It allows you to excuse your failure to accomplish your Wikiversity goals (do you have goals for Wikiversity? are they being realized?) because you can blame others. John, I know this because I've been there. I've been getting massive coaching about all this. It can be hard to hear. In order to accomplish my goals, I have to give up my story, the web of interpretation that I confuse with reality. Here, on-wiki, we do have a reality, it's the database, the edit history. What's in that database is fact, i.e, it is there. But what all that data means is something we supply, as humans. We imagine that interpretations are "truth." They aren't, they are neither true nor false, they are either useful or they aren't. You have, and have been repeating, a set of interpretations that you made up. What you may not realize is that you have choice in this matter. You can make up different interpretations, and they can be just as "true," but, more to the point, they can be more effective, they can empower you.
 * Bottom line, is it possible for you to drop the story, to start to just relate to what is, and start to develop possibilities? Possibilities are also stories or interpretations, but they can be empowering, they can break out of the box. If you will do this, nothing is impossible. That is, also, a story, an interpretation, it's neither true nor false. But it's empowering. How about you try it, or are you too far gone? I don't believe that! I believe you can do it. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't waste my time writing to you. You may ask me to stop, but I'm not going to give up on you unless you do ask me to stop. You are worth the effort.
 * In my view, Wikiversity is the hope of the WMF. It's also worth the effort.
 * I wrote: "Consider how you repaid him," you responded with "what do you mean by that?" I mean that Geoff took a risk and unblocked you, relying upon your assurances.. When you were again blocked, Geoff considered your unblock request and denied it. He apparently considered that you did not keep your promise. Now, perhaps he did not understand your promise correctly. There are certainly problems with how you have been blocked, but your behavior has created a situation where almost every experienced custodian is "involved."
 * You could address the situation with a clear agreement, but you have, since then, refused to do so. That's your choice. What you have indicated by your responses here is that repeat of the problem behavior can be expected if you are unblocked. What's the "problem behavior"? Geoff said it: As part of the conditional unblock, the user agreed to abide by the norms of the community and stop dredging up past issues. I've been telling you something like this for over a year. Stop dredging up past issues.
 * Above, you write, Since the demiGodKing has a penchant for making decisions in secret, off wiki, ... That is an interpretation of this user's behavior that is, by its nature, based on history, not in the present. It infers his "character," his alleged "penchant," from the past. It is, indeed, "dredging up past issues." But you might look deeper than the specific claim about "past issues." What you showed while unblocked was interest in accusing others of misbehavior, and you affirm that here: I stand up to the people who disrupt this project. "Disruption" is your interpretation. But you don't actually "take a stand," which would be laudable. Rather, you accuse and blame, and create reams of repetitive arguments that do nothing more than irritate the community. I've just reviewed your editing in the period when you were last unblocked, and I agree with Geoff. You apparently don't know how to stop. I believe you could do it, if you decided to trust the community. That means that you assume that if an issue is important, others will also see it as important. Specific limitations on your behavior could be negotiated in a future unblock, so that you'd know exactly what you could do and not do. I'm currently blocked on meta for some total BS. I'll abide by any agreement set by an unblocking administrator, pending community review. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not.
 * "if you wish it so" <-- If I wish what? If you wish to remain a valued member of the community.
 * What's important to you, here on Wikiversity? --Abd 16:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ISTE in SL.png
This file was deleted by a custodian. I restored it, under an assumption that this was fair use, but this is being contested, see User_talk:Abd. It turns out that screenshots from Second Life may be used, under some circumstances, and not under others. You did not provide adequate information with your upload to determine the circumstances, so those advocating strict compliance with strict fair use restrictions may argue for deletion. You may respond here, I'll make sure that your responses are covered in discussions over this. It's really a larger discussion, see Assembly. Again, on this point, your evidence will be valuable, and, particularly since you seem to have written WV:EDP, for the most part, which is what is being enforced, your opinions and views are specially solicited. --Abd 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Using a screen shot of software for educational purposes is clearly fair use. --JWSchmidt 01:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to clarify the educational purpose of the file ? The reason I originally deleted (apart from the absence of any licensing) was the fact that it's not referred to in the text, and doesn't show anything which isn't in the other files on the page - which are all also fair use images. Thanks for your consideration. -- Simone 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, in what way would the "omission [of the file] be detrimental to that understanding" of the educational uses of Second Life ? -- Simone 01:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 16:05, 14 October 2011 S Larctia deleted "File:ISTE in SL.png" ‎ (Unsuitable copyrighted file. Please read Terms of Use: screenshot of copyright software, no claim of fair use.) <-- anyone going around deleting files without a good faith effort to first understand the files and how they are used should not have access to the delete button. "the absence of any licensing" <-- The image was marked with a fair use template at upload. The image was used at Education in virtual worlds to show the ISTE information desk, an example of the type of visual feature that is used to facilitate educator networking. The tutorial at Education in virtual worlds starts with instructions for how to find the ISTE information desk and it was useful to show what it looks like. Linden Lab has a liberal policy for use of screen shots of their virtual world. On what basis was "Unsuitable copyrighted file" used as an excuse to delete this image file? --JWSchmidt 22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's partially the fact that you didn't bother to specify a license when you uploaded it. The file either belongs to you (as you took it) in which case it should be licensed under a free-use licence (CC-BY-SA or something similar), or it was taken by someone else, in which case it's a copyright violation unless it has previously been released with a free-use licence. Fair use images can only be claimed as fair use when there is an explanation as to how and why they are being used in the article. As Second Life screenshots belong to the individual who captures them, no Second Life screenshot is likely to meet fair use criteria, as they are easily replaceable with free-use files. I therefore deleted because 1. there was no explanation of the educational role of the file 2. there was no explicit claim of fair use or licensing 3. the file is unlikely to qualify as fair use anyway. If the screenshot was indeed taken by you, you should have made that clear in the first place.-- Simone 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Simone, JWS said "I made this image" with the upload. That was apparently considered enough at the time of the upload, 2007. The file is thus licensed, as his own work, under the general site license of the time. We are speculating that it might be restricted in some way. My fair use rationale is thus incorrect, an error on my part. JWS did not assert this was copyrighted. I'm going to remove that template. This is the same as some files that are mentioned on the RfD page in the undelete section. It's a result of transition in licensing practice. Unsigned comment added by Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 18 October 2011, note added by Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

fair use policy

 * Thanks for responding, JWS. I've been taking a stand for two principles:
 * There is more to education than "facts." A good educator presents material in an engaging way, and images can be a part of that.
 * Wikiversity custodians should avoid being in the business of determining what specific content is educational and what is not, when the page is educational. If the image were irrelevant to the page, sure. But it isn't. It's a snapshot of Second Life. Makes me want to talk to that woman. Makes me think of registering with Second Life. Arousing that kind of response is part of skilful education.
 * Because of these kinds of considerations, I think that we need a fair use policy that is more liberal than what is generally the case with other WMF sites. We are not merely developers of educational materials to be used elsewhere. We run actual educational process here, and the attractiveness of pages is important for that, it's often neglected.
 * Given that, though, we still would hold the line and will not host anything that could create legal risk for the WMF. The Second Life images are a tricky situation, if we insist on knowing the licensing. My strong opinion is that none of them, however, do any damage to the copyright holders, who are unknown to us, because users aren't identified in the images. Second Life does permit snapshots to be used, but that permission varies with the "property" involved. Because I believe that this is fair use, regardless, I'd prefer not to require that you disclose exactly where you obtained the images, and whether or not you investigated the licensing. You might not remember, anyway. --Abd 02:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "legal risk for the WMF" "Second Life images are a tricky situation" <-- what is so tricky? If a copyright holder objected to one of those screen shots then the file would be deleted. --JWSchmidt 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Second Life is tricky because whether or not a snapshot is allowed depends on the location of the snapshot. (According to the current TOS, I don't know what the situation was when you captured this image, if it was you.) Yes, their licensing is liberal, in many locations. However, Second Life locations are often created by users who own the copyright. Second Life provides for defaults (I think the default is that snapshots are permitted) but users may reverse this. It's not likely, my guess, that the image is a problem. Notice that your comment could be interpreted to mean that Wikiversity should not care about image licensing unless someone requests takedown. That's actually a somewhat reasonable position, but it is not WMF policy, which specifically allows removal of improperly licensed material, not waiting for takedown. There are piles of issues raised by that policy, so my effort is going to be to develop a coherent proposed WV policy, something that is both practical and enforceable, without requiring lots of highly subjective decisions, and then negotiate this with the WMF. Frankly, they'll get better compliance with such an agreement than they've gotten with the existing policy, which requires users who will spend their time dealing with headaches, where "success" produces no improvement of content at all. Such users exist, but they tend not to stick around for a long time!
 * Note that even if a snapshot is "not allowed," it may still be legal under fair use. Copyright is a huge can of worms, where lawyers may disagree with each other.
 * Perhaps you did not understand my comment about legal risk. This image and other images under discussion do not create any legal risk for the WMF, period. I'm making it clear that no policy I'd support would do so. I think you actually agree with this. --Abd 00:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Files
Per LindenLabs policies and the comments above, I'm taking the liberty to license all files on that page under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and I'm uploading them to Commons. If you would rather they were available under a different license, please inform me. -- Simone 11:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)