Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/July 2010

SUL
Hi, I have SUL as Mysha. As one of the pages keeps telling me my SUL is incomplete, I would like to resolve the last few conflicts. One is the user:Mysha on Wikiversity. The current user has slightly over 70 edits, all done on 5 dates in July - September 2007, and links the user page to an URL that no longer seems to exist. Is there a way to resolve this? 212.203.0.54
 * Yes, make your request at Changing username. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Btech and BE
--116.199.170.220 05:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC) hello sir/mada, i want to know the difference between Btech and BE.
 * Maybe - Bachelor of Technology and Bachelor of Education? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

fix for text size
Hi, In some browsers, texts look very small when "code", "pre" and "tt" tags are used. Could you please add this code to mediawiki:common.css to fix this problem:

--Srhat 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I also added -- dark lama  13:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Srhat 13:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we request unlock for Thekohser?
'''Consensus to allow Talk page communication established, no unlock request necessary at this time because alternate account functioning. --Abd 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)'''

From discussions on my talk page and elsewhere, it seems we had a consensus among administrators to allow User:Thekohser access to his Talk page, and, in fact, I did open that up. However, in the process, it was revealed that on May 30, that account was globally locked, reversing what seemed to be a broad consensus to allow local wikis to make their own decisions with regard to this user, who is blocked in many places (mostly as a response to a request from Jimbo), but not blocked in others, and in some places this unblocked status was explicitly made and supported by local admins. The issue here is not whether or not Thekohser should be unblocked, no immediate decision is even requested on that issue, but whether or not we should be allowed to investigate the issue without it being completely moot. If the account is locked, Thekohser cannot log in and therefore we cannot have any clear proof that we are communicating with him. Some of us do have direct contact information, sure, but the whole process becomes obscure and limited.

Anyone can request global unlock on meta, at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_.28un.29lock_and_.28un.29hiding. If I had time, today, I'd do it, but it would be better if we have a local consensus to make the request. I don't want this to become a personal struggle or argument. As I said, there was consensus from a few administrators who discussed it, which has been Adambro, Ottava Rima, and myself, and Diego Grez only expressed opposition because unblocking was moot given the global lock. I'd prefer to have a central discussion to point to, plus my plan would be to point out other wikis where decisions were made by administrators to either completely unblock or to allow talk page or email access for Thekohser, and the meta action locking effectively reversed all these decisions, apparently without discussion, or with only narrow and/or private discussion (I've been unable to find any discussion at all.) I've asked Mike.lifegaurd to explain on his meta Talk page, but we don't need to wait for that.

My sense is that a request to locally unlock Thekohser might be granted swiftly if made as a general steward request accompanied by evidence of consensus here. We would clearly not be allowing Thekohser to edit anything other than his Talk page here, and that only to allow investigation of unblocking, and anyone from "outside" Wikiversity could express concerns about Thekohser in our discussion, if they find it important.

So my proposal: 'The Wikiversity community, directly and as served by Wikiversity administrators, requests that a steward allow Thekohser log-in access to his Wikiversity account, or to all WMF accounts through a global unlock, returning the situation to what it was before May 30, when local wikis were allowed to make their own decisions. No prejudice is implied as to blocking or unblocking Thekohser. This is solely about allowing the Wikiversity community to decide, with "outside" participation if needed, but not outside control.' --Abd 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be most efficient to simply have an honest Custodian try to undo all of the damage done by the unwelcome interventions of User:Jimbo Wales and others such as Mike.lifeguard. All of their actions that were taken without consulting with the Wikiversity community should be undone. --JWSchmidt 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One step at a time, JWS. If there is a way to locally undo 'the damage' from the global lock, then we will simply implement our consensus locally. Otherwise, no Custodian here, "honest" or otherwise, can act and have it mean anything. I already revised Thekohser's block to allow Talk page access, to begin the process you seem to want, but it's moot unless we find consensus here or, otherwise, the global lock is somehow lifted without that. Please don't complicate the issue here by bringing up the whole mess. No individual custodian can clean that up without creating a similar mess in another direction. We can do it as a community. Please join this, okay? --Abd 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As I've made clear and despite Abd seeming to suggest that I "only expressed opposition because unblocking was moot given the global lock", I have significant concerns about Thekohser and consider the block to be appropriate. Thekohser has a track record of finding trouble wherever he goes on WMF projects and that is the justification for the global lock. I've highlighted Thekohser's false claims of copyright violations as an example of how he has acted disruptively here. At the moment Abd is right that Thekohser can't comment on his block on his talk page. However, before we go to the effort of trying to get the global lock lifted in some way to allow him to do so, why are we not discussing the pros and cons of unblocking Thekohser? We might conclude that the block is appropriate and not need to progress any further regarding the global lock. I appreciate that as a small project, Wikiversity will struggle to get its voice heard at a WMF level but I think "flexing our muscles" for the sake of it isn't helpful. Is there really such an enthusiasm for unblocking Thekohser to merit this effort? Adambro 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC) See below. Adambro 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I urge you to reconsider, Adambro. The issue here is not unblocking Thekohser, merely in whether or not we, as a community, are allowed to make the decision. If we are not allowed to make the decision, I, for one, am not willing to waste my time and that of others engaging in what might be a difficult and contentious decision process. It seems you prefer deciding first if Thekohser should be unblocked, but, paradoxically, you don't want Thekohser to be able to participate in that, to defend himself, etc. I am enthusiastic, not about unblocking Thekohser, which I only support if appropriate conditions are set up, but about wiki communities making their own decisions without what certainly appears to be outside interference and control. I have not stated that I would even request unblocking Thekohser, only that I want to allow him access to his Talk page so that we can properly consider it. This should have been simple. You supported it, in fact, so I must assume that you now oppose because you misunderstand the request. You've also mistaken my comment about Diego Grez's apparent position as being about you. Please read more carefully. I understood, previously, that you supported allowing the Talk page access. Was I wrong about this? --Abd 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misread. You did understand correctly regarding the talk page access issue however at that point I hadn't realise a global lock was in place. Simply changing the block conditions here to see what he has to say is very different from having to start getting the global lock changed to enable it. I remain of the view that it would be useful for the community to consider the block of Thekohser before considering going to all these efforts necessary to allow him to comment. It might be the case that the community agree that the block is completely appropriate and nothing that Thekohser be able to say might change that view. Adambro 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also support removing the sysop bit from all Wikiversity participants who continue to support the disruptive practice by which outsiders come to Wikiversity and block honest participants and delete content without first engaging in community discussion. We need to return Wikiversity to its purpose and put and end to the disruption of this learning community by interlopers who abuse their positions of authority. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: The community discussion has been censored. --JWSchmidt 17:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If so, rather ineffectively, since that comment can be read, as you just proved. I certainly hope that nobody revision-deletes, that would be, indeed, censorship, and I see utterly no reason for that and plenty of reason to oppose it. We can decide, at leisure, if the comment itself should be restored to this discussion, I was inclined to bring it back in, but it is also, like some comments that remain, rather off-topic, so I was thinking of bringing it back in within collapse, and also possibly of collapsing some other comments (including my own responses). It was from Moulton, another banned user, banned for somewhat similar reasons and also through intervention from meta. --Abd 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Actually, I'll support this proposal. We may as well see what, if anything, Thekohser has to say. The outcome may be that the community confirms its support for the block or decides to unblock Thekohser. If the latter happens and Thekohser does turn into a useful contributor then I'll happily eat my words. If the latter happens and Thekohser doesn't turn into a useful contributor I trust anyone who has argued in support of the unblock will take responsibility and take appropriate action to prevent disruption to the project. Adambro 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adambro. I now have a brief response from Mike.lifeguard: permanent link, and I asked for more details. However, at this point I see no reason to not go ahead and make the request on the steward request page, but I'll wait another day to see if any objection appears here that should be considered. As to unblocking, I haven't decided to ask for that, it would depend on what Thekohser has to say, and what conditions, if any, are set. Given the history and to satisfy possible "cross-wiki issues," whatever that means, there may well be conditions. We are not, here, deciding to unblock, only to return the situation to what I think most of us agree on: we should make our own decision, and if there is to be interference from outside, that should be clear and probably based on Foundation rights and authority, so we can all know what to expect. I have already unblocked access to User talk:TheKohser, so, unless that changes, the process can begin of considering any local unblock appeal from him as soon as he is able to log in. That's what the lock prevents. --Abd 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was rather excited to find a MediaWiki control page, global-blocking whitelist or something like that. However, this only affects global IP blocks. It appears that there is no way in the MediaWiki software to locally bypass a global lock on an account, which prevents the user from logging in. The steward documentation on global locks implies that it will only be used for egregious problems, but I also find reference in one discussion to "cross-wiki issues" as a supposedly common lock reason. Ottava Rima made a suggestion for Thekohser on meta, but the global lock, initially transient, later made this moot when re-established.

This meta discussion took place May 3. There was no global lock until May 3, as shown in the global account log. Drini went back and forth until Pathoschild unlocked May 5. Mike.lifeguard relocked May 30, as can be seen.

This is an example of a discussion of this on Wikiquote. Other similar discussions took place elsewhere. The SUL utility shows the current block status on various wikis. As can be seen, almost all the blocks were implemented by a few stewards, notably Pathoschild and Mike.lifeguard. By locking again, in effect, Mike.lifeguard undid the work of Pathoschild, who was establishing a reversible local action with his blocks. Pathoschild specifically unlocked so that local wikis could make the decisions. At least three of the blocks shown were actually partial unblocks, such as mine on Wikiversity. Those are all useless at this point.

Some links: Discussion on commons leading to unblock of Thekohser there. The unblock was May 28. Was the May 30 lock related to this? An edit of Thekohser, May 26, to de.wikipedia, may also have been related. Other than the de.wikipedia edit, which wasn't taken as abusive locally -- Thekohser is not blocked on de.wikipedia -- I don't see any activity that would lead to some emergency need to lock May 30. But we shouldn't have to be guessing. There was an earlier attempt to protest the unblock of Thekohser on de.wikipedia.. The admin didn't buy it.

This is the most recent version of the discussion with the locking steward.

So, how to proceed? The same steward globally locked Thekohser-2, but before there had been much notice here. This is what I suggest, and will do, absent objection. I'm trying to avoid a confrontation. So I'm going to ask Thekohser to create, if he can, a new account that is, on creation, not identified as his. However, I will ask him not to use this account to make any edits, just to create it and notify me, off-wiki. If he is prevented from doing that by IP blocks, I will assist him in the creation of this account. I will then block the account, allowing Talk page access, with an explanation on the page, and notification here, and I will invite others to comment there as well. This will be setting up the mechanism for dialog with Thekohser, if he accepts this. If a steward again interferes at this point, we will cross the bridge then. The precedents have been established for local control. I suspect that the steward community will not support the recent actions; if there is no consensus there on meta, this may have to go to the Foundation itself, because there are critical Foundation issues involved. We want and need to know if we are autonomous in matters that only affect our wiki, and we need to know how to determine the boundaries.. --Abd 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser responded to my suggestion about registering a new account and registered User:Ethical Accountability, informing me so I could, first thing, indef block the account but leave Talk page access open. I did so. I did not allow email access in case someone might object, but will lift that restriction if there is no objection. Did Thekohser abuse email? The user has requested unblock. I have recused, but may research and comment. --Abd 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thekohser's latest unblock request is pretty much the same as what I declined in 23 March 2010. In doing so I effectively confirmed Jimbo's block so simply that Jimbo was initially responsible for blocking isn't, as Abd has appeared to acknowledge, necessarily a particularly convincing reason for unblocking. However, I think it is important to look at what happened after that decision. He made this remark in which he suggests that he thinks it was okay to evade a block if he didn't agree with it. He was subsequently warned by Ottava Rima for the nature of the edit summary. He was also, whilst blocked, involved in the abuse of multiple accounts by making completely false claims of copyright violation. What we need as a community is to be reassured that Thekohser won't be acting to disrupt the project and part of that would be for him to recognise how this incident I've highlighted was disruptive. One sentance saying that "Inposition of block sequence by Jimmy Wales was out-of-process and encroached on this community" provides little reassurance. Adambro 10:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of this; what can happen now is to begin to discuss the issues and possible necessary "reassurance." That can take place, for minimal disruption, on User talk:Ethical Accountability. I ask that any admin who has previously been involved in blocking Thekohser not deny the unblock request, please let it stand. But any neutral admin may, of course, respond, or one who has been involved in blocking may, of course, unblock. (I do not include "blocks" which are permissive revisions of block details.) I will not act myself on this request unless consensus is clear. I am archiving this discussion, as the issue here, which was only to deal with the disallowance of communication on the block though the global lock, is, for the time being, at least, moot; consensus was found and local action to make a steward request unnecessary was also done.
 * One general comment: unjust blocks lead to various responses, which include socking, etc. To move on, it is necessary for the community to set aside normal responses to what may have been abusive or out-of-process blocks, for treating socking, for example, as other than "status offenses," charges of which are normally easily dropped when there is no further need to be addressed, institutionalizes errors. It is also necessary for a banned user, to be able to re-integrate, to drop the crusade for "justice," which diverts attention from what cooperation is possible on-going. If a user wants to criticize Wikipedia and Wikipedians or Wikiversity and Wikiversitans off-wiki, that is his or her business, and we should not allow retaliation here for what is legally done elsewhere. The issues are complex, and we will not resolve them in this particular discussion. We will, I assume, discuss them individually and in sufficient detail to find consensus. --Abd 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Moulton
Note: this community discussion has been censored.
 * No, it was not. Moulton was again evading his enforced ban, that just proves he's being childish . If he really wants to redeem himself, is tell Jtneill or any other bureaucrat a name to rename themselves (Moulton2?), and then they will be able to edit their talk pages. They can't because they are locked globally, so any type of discussion here will be unsatisfactory. Just rename them! Additionally, he will not merge his global account, otherwise he will be locked globally without further notice. This is the only solution. --Diego Grez 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Moulton has proven himself unrelentless in wanting to post or discuss aspects of his block as various IPs, I would like to propose the following:


 * Release the part of Moulton's block that prevents him from being able to edit his user talk page.
 * Allow him to edit on his user talk page and only his user talk page.
 * Any posts that discuss personal information of users (real names, real jobs, song parodies mocking such, etc.) will result in a loss of user talk page access for a week and a delete of the content.
 * Only Wikiversity related matters can be discussed on the user talk page, which can include aspects directly regarding his Wikiversity block only and not any blocks on other Wikis including Wikipedia.

In return, I would expect from Moulton to use this access to produce the following:


 * A statement regarding how he would address the problem of his previous releasing of personal information about Wiki users that were a major component to his previous block.
 * A statement regarding how he could contribute to building educational content here that does not have anything to deal with his Wikipedia block, users from Wikipedia, or other matters dealing with what transpired there in 2008. This would include possible content based on his experience/education/research outside of Wikipedia itself.
 * A statement with suggestions on what kind of parameters and limitations he thinks would allow us to comfortably allow him greater access beyond his user talk page.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. If no one objects, I'm gonna change his block. :-) --Diego Grez 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, this is not an unblock, but mostly a way to limit Moulton and to keep him focus on what could be a legitimate discussion instead of having him express himself in a way that could be problematic. I would also like Moulton to produce the content he claimed he wanted to produce for Geoff (as claimed on WR) while logged in on his name and on his user talk page, instead of going around the blocks and just doing whatever he wants. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't going to unblock him, just to let him edit the talk page after your suggestion. --Diego Grez 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying the above in response to you, as more of a response to anyone from WMF or offsite that might mistake this as an unblock. Moulton could possibly prove that he can be trusted enough for that, but I don't feel that he is yet. I would like to see him make good on his claims at WR and show that he can contribute to our community, or, at least, show how he could. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. --Diego Grez 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * An honest Custodian should just unblock Moulton. The whole affair is a disgraceful chapter in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton outed people. You know that, I know that. He cannot be given free reign until at least -that- behavior is snipped in the bud. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Moulton's SUL lock keeps him from being able to get access regardless. I'm trying to figure out a way now. If Moulton wishes to email me I can then put up the above material on his user talk page for now as long as it abides by the conditions above. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to point that out. One step at a time. There is a pending discussion here to request unlock, at least locally here, for Thekohser. If a consensus appears quickly here to do the same for Moulton, it can all be done at once, but ... no rush. This mess has existed for a few years, it can take a few more days.... I agree with transmitting material for banned users in general, the person doing it is responsible for disruption if the content is actually disruptive, otherwise, without that responsibility, it would be meat puppetry. I already put Thekohser material on his user page, at his request and on review of it. --Abd 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an unblock request for Moulton. This is a talk page unlock to allow him to put his content in one area with the benefit of his name. It would trade his using hundreds of different ips in various pages for having his own identity back on one page with a strict set of rules and intent. The restoration of identity even in a limited capacity should appeal to Moulton in some regard, as he speaks quite often about rights and intrinsic aspects of an individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a solution (after talking to a few stewards), but I will need a crat and it might be interesting to see if it works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suspect a bureaucrat can locally disable a global lock. If that's true, then we don't need to go to meta to open up his Talk page to Thekohser. By the way, this would be as it should be, and the only difference between global account locks and the global blacklist is then that it takes a 'crat, whereas an ordinary administrator can whitelist pages or an entire domain. Ottava, I'm busy this morning, you want to ping JT? we do have a consensus on allowing User talk access to Thekohser, to start. --Abd 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop mentioning Thekohser. I would not advocate doing anything like this for him. This is about a user who was banned a year and a half ago claiming that he could contribute something worth while and giving him a chance to do it without having to avoid our blocks and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same issue, basically, users "globally banned" for "cross-wiki issues," where we cannot simply work some solution locally. Both users were critical of Wikipedia and of the WMF and then of various interventions here. Both have some level of support. The case of Thekohser seems to be simpler, as to the first step, and we seem to have consensus on it. The case of Moulton is more complex; but both cases could possibly end up with no change, except that the decision would remain local. We could try unblock and see what happens, for example. Or not. I really am just looking to make it possible to negotiate an end to the disruption, which, if prior history elsewhere is any guide (with others as well as with them), will simply continue indefinitely unless a real solution is found. If that's inevitable, so be it, but it behooves us to try.
 * In both cases, manipulating block settings does nothing except change the block reason one sees when looking at the global account summary. In both cases we need a steward, or, I hope, merely a 'crat. --Abd 01:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues are extremely different, with different lead ups, backgrounds, and the rest. The people are also very different. Abd, you do not have the experience with the situation or the background, and your statements above do you far more harm than good. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I've read a great deal of the background, but as I've written, it's complex. The people are different, and should be considered individually, as to any unblock issue. The similarities are two: both users were blocked out-of-process and without local consensus, the accounts have been globally locked preventing us from even allowing Talk page access, and both users were blocked, apparently, for criticizing Wikipedia or the WMF or privileged individuals. I'm trying to tease out the issues so they can be addressed one at a time, and there is no use discussing unblocking either account if the global lock is in place. If my statements above do me harm, can you please specify so that I can refactor or strike or whatever is appropriate? I can see above that Diego Grez struck his comment about "childish...." --Abd 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both process and consensus was followed with Moulton's block. It is only that Jimbo beat everyone to the punch. If you noticed, Moulton was given a program to be user talk page only before he was blocked to see if he could prove that he was capable of limiting himself to a task without using real life identities and he rest. He chose not to do that and was removed. Moulton's issues were local. Thekohser issues are not local. He was not a regular here. He was not a normal contributor. He was blocked across Wiki and we don't have the same connection with Thekohser. To locally unblock him or the rest would have no real basis as local unblocks should be based on a relationship with the user and the community, and there was none for Thekohser. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * process and consensus was followed with Moulton's block <-- Moulton was subjected to an orchestrated witch hunt while Wikiversity was under threat of termination. A hit man from Wikipedia and a supporting cast of agitators got Moulton banned. The hit man was rewarded by being made a Wikiversity sysop. There was a show trial for Moulton which was closed, falsely, as constituting justification for a ban, closed by an involved witch hunter who had previously blocked Moulton and who had the brilliant idea of making the hit man a probationary custodian. Under these conditions, I don't understand why any Wikiversity sysop continues enforcing a ban against Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. I believe that all continuing sysop actions and statements in support of a ban against Moulton are serious violations of Wikiversity policy and constitute grounds for termination of sysop status. An honest Custodian should take appropriate action to deal with sysops who are enforcing a ban against Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you would yell at people for blocks and bans when there isn't a policy, but the above which can be found also in WMF policy (meaning we don't need to have a necessary policy of our own about outing) is the thing you now say needs to have a policy first. JWSchmidt, your statements are 100% backwards and you undermine any possible support that Moulton would have for another chance. I was giving him a way out of the mess, and you are doing whatever you can to close that off. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * yell at people <-- I'm not sure what you mean. Some people view THIS KIND OF TEXT AS YELLING. the above which can be found also in WMF policy <-- "the above"? Are you saying that using someone's name is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy? If so, please quote from the policy to support your claim. "you undermine any possible support that Moulton would have for another chance" <-- I'd like to see him be given his first chance to defend himself against the charges that you and others have made. --JWSchmidt 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yelling is another word for scolding, correcting, chastising, etc. It is also the privacy policy, as I mentioned before. Moulton had many chances just from me and he refused. I even gave him a user talk page chance like I am doing now and he blew it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is also the privacy policy" <-- Please quote from the privacy policy in support of the idea that Moulton should be banned from participating at Wikiversity. I even gave him a user talk page chance <-- I assume you mean this. So, you were not satisfied with that little experiment? On the basis of your dissatisfaction you claim the right to enforce a ban against Moulton's participation at Wikiversity? I don't recognize your authority to do so. Please directly quote policy that supports your position. In the absence of justification in policy, enforcing a ban against Moulton is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton outed people. You know that <-- If you want to make charges against Moulton, I suggest you provide your evidence and let Moulton respond to your charges. Which Wikiversity policy states that participants can be banned for using someone's name? My understanding of "outed" is that it is a term like "troll" and "disruption" that Wikipedia sysops frequently use when they want to abuse their power....almost always no evidence to support their charge is provided. Moulton was participating constructively at Wikiversity and then a hit man from Wikipedia came here with the declared objective of getting Moulton banned. It's a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation that Moulton was banned and the hit man was made a sysop. The Wikiversity community should have a discussion about the wisdom of allowing anonymous Wikiversity participants to publish claims about living people, particularly under conditions where those people are not allowed to respond. --JWSchmidt 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt, you were present for many of his instances of using people's real names, even my own. He uses my name and identity quite regularly. I had to go through his archives and delete last December after someone pointed out that it was still visible on some pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008, collaborating editors at Wikiversity often made use of real-world names and some still do. Colleagues often get a warm felling when a friend uses their name. In 2008 a few Wikipedians started imposing rules from outside of this project, such as making it a crime to use someone's name. I think the Wikiversity community should have a long and serious discussion about the damage done to Wikiversity by "Wikipedia Disease" and the forced imposition of outside rules. Why can't Wikiversity be a community of scholarly learners who can refer to each other by name? Why must this wiki continue to be a hell hole where anonymous barbarians are free to harass and drive away the scholarly participants? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Often does not mean mandatory, nor does it make it acceptable to use identity against someone's will. Your argument falls apart on that simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is possible to build a community of collaborating learners when there are sysops who protect the right of anonymous thugs to harass and drive away other wiki participants. This abhorrent practice destroyed the Wikiversity community that was built up during the first two years of the Wikiversity project. Wiki participants who want to remain anonymous should restrain themselves from publishing false claims about other wiki participants. The Wikiversity community should carefully study why it is that a few sysops protect and reward anonymous thugs while preventing honest wiki participants from defending themselves against the thugs. --JWSchmidt 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is harassing to out people. It is also against our privacy policy, which is built into the WMF system. It cannot be justified in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this proposed policy? The WMF policy is not relevant. I don't believe that using someone's name is crime. If you want to make it a crime then why not start by making Privacy policy official policy? --JWSchmidt 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that, as Moulton himself has said on Wikipedia Review, he doesn't actually want to be unblocked nor to actually contribute properly but simply to comment on things going on here. He can stick to doing that on Wikipedia Review. It seems clear that he doesn't want to join the community to develop learning resources but use the project as some kind of experiment with the community as effectively guinea pigs, making odd edits here and there to test his theories. Is this right? Should we really bother accommodating Moulton when he has no intention of actually contributing to the project? Adambro 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He stated there that he would want to help Geoff on his project. If so, then that is enough for me to try. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the issue of whether a 'crat will be able to deal with this, it doesn't look like it from Special:ListGroupRights. Whilst we can locally whitelist globally blocked IPs, we can't do anything about global locks it doesn't seem. Assistance from a steward would be required I think. Adambro 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I already talked to multiple stewards and I know how a Crat can do it (and only Crats can do it). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain how a 'crat can do this then? Adambro 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is sensitive and only something a Crat can do, so I wont be talking about it except to one of our Crats. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I won't tell anyone. I assume it involves renaming the local account to detach it from the global account and then renaming back. Is that really sensitive information? Adambro 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At, Adambro, you suspected my word "sane vandal" of being an oxymoron. May I ask
 * whether User:Moulton is sane or not, and
 * whether he is a vandal worth blocking or not, or in a word,
 * whether he is a "sane vandal" no doubt?
 * -- KYPark [T] 08:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions
See this page for some unanswered questions related to the above. Unless and until those questions are answered, the above is an exercise in futility. —Moulton 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Principles, not personalities. You should be allowed access to your Talk page unless you abuse it, but using it to out editors, to poke them, is generally abuse. I'd argue that admins should have thicker skins, but .... some of us think that admins need special protection (I noticed a number of admins on Wikipedia connecting me with my RL activities, not that I minded, and I've been very open about who I am and what I'm about.) Wikiversity isn't a court of law, Jimbo is not on trial (nor are you, actually), and the future of Wikiversity does not depend on Jimbo, it depends on us. Which could include you, or not, it is largely your choice. If there is interference from "above," we will deal with that, through civil due process and natural rights, and if it turns out that this interference remains unacceptable, we will take our efforts elsewhere. That is, in fact, part of the wiki design, especially wikis with open licensing. Very simple: which is easier, to stay here or move elsewhere?


 * When you asked before, I contacted you directly about various outings you did, including your song parodies about Filll's real identity. I also yelled at you multiple times for using Killer Chihuahua's real name among others, including -my own-. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're evading the question. What about the unanswered questions?  Please summon Jimbo here to answer them. —Moulton 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The question was answered. You are evading your block trying to distract from the fact that your questions were answered and have been answered since December 2008 and you are using the above as a false justification to acting inappropriately. The above are the conditions, and if you are unwilling to abide by them I can take the offer away. You've pushed me before trying to get me to back down and you know that I am willing to take any measure to stand up against you. So cut the crap. If you honestly want to contribute, you better shut up and prove it. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where, pray tell, are Jimbo's answers to the questions posed on his talk page? Please exhibit them. —Moulton 09:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton, I am sorry. I am not as smart as you. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I beg of you to please please write a song so that a simpleton like me can understand your point. Thank you ever so much. (P.S. thanks for the memories...) - WAS 4.250 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no point to make, WAS. Geoff and others have asked me to participate in some upcoming discussions and seminars here. One of the new questions to be answered is whether Adam and Ottava intend to extend or deny to their remaining fellow scholars here the freedom to learn with the visiting scholars of their choice. If so, fine. If not, I reckon Geoff and the others will be obliged to relocate their courses elsewhere. —Moulton 09:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Users are doing here exactly what I was trying to avoid: debate the wisdom of unblocking a user when it has not actually been proposed to unblock him, and when it's moot unless another step is first taken (unlock). The case of Thekohser is difficult enough; Moulton raises hosts of issues, including the whole question of "outing"; Moulton believes that an academic environment is in intrinsic conflict with anonymity. I'm not prepared to debate that now, but it is not a simple matter of someone being "childish." It's a real question, which should be carefully considered as we chart the future of Wikiversity. Moulton raises valuable issues, that's why I even care about all this. But he's also tendentious and tenacious and doesn't seem to understand how to collaborate with people who disagree with him, particularly when he -- and some of his friends -- can define the disagreement as "corruption" or "abuse."


 * Given that Moulton is actively prevented from defending himself here, I will agree with JWS that he should not be attacked, and I ask that this cease, as well as the defense and accusations of censorship and dishonesty. If there is no objection, I intend to fast-archive this discussion. It can be incorporated by reference if an actual unblock template is put up and we wish to discuss the matter. Until then, this is a colossal waste of time. Moulton doesn't want to be unblocked, so discussing him here is an open invitation to him to sock, trolling him for further violations. If anyone wants to discuss things with Moulton, it's very easy on Wikipedia Review, and users remain free here to bring in specific comments from Moulton that they believe of value; they will be responsible for them. I've asked Moulton to stop socking, to use alternate modes of communication which are open to him. If he ignores that, I remain free to wash my hands of the affair. I respect Moulton, but I also want him to respect the rights of the community, which has the right to regulate its own process. --Abd 01:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton is actively prevented from any interaction. If he wants a legitimate way to interact, the above is the only way. However, I haven't seen anyone attacking anyone here. There is also no reason to archive this material. As a final note, this is not a discussion for him, but about the action I am willing to do which would give him a voice. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava, my voice is not yours to give or take away. —Moulton 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In relation to  below:
 * Great Repeal Bill


 *  Institute of Economic Affairs


 * -- KYPark [T] 08:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton has created a new account, Caprice. The newly-created account is restricted to talk page access only. I really hope something good comes out from this, and I think it will be a net positive for the project. As far as I see, Moulton seems to be a serious person, who just wants to add something positive to the project. Let's say this is his first start on the project, can we just 'pardon him'? Diego Grez 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is how he can do it, without abandoning what is important to him. Moulton, er, Caprice, I know you are inclined to research and comment on certain controversial areas. If you approach these slowly and carefully, and come to a screeching halt if someone objects, until consensus can be found, there should be little or no problem. You needn't stop, just slow way, way down, so that everyone else can catch up with you. It takes time to discuss things, and someone like you may tend to keep pouring it on. Some activities may be possible here, some not, at least not at the present time. We won't know until we check it out. If you want to work in some area and think there is the remotest possibility it will cause some shouting, ask. Talk with us about it, preferably off-wiki at first. --Abd 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be precise, what do you mean by "us" Abd? -- KYPark [T] 07:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the general "us" which includes all who are interested, or even more than that. I'm suggesting that someone like Moulton first discuss stuff before pushing it, and I'd assume this would be first of all with those who are sympathetic, and who are willing to support some activity, and then with others who might be more neutral to broaden support and perhaps smooth off unnecessary rough edges. I was including myself in "us," but not excluding others. Moulton has extensively communicated with me off-wiki, and it is always welcome. By the way, the advice I gave to Moulton I also give to myself. I don't push my "right ideas" unless I've identified sufficient support that I think they might become consensus if examined. Pushing ideas before their time is disruptive. --Abd 16:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Along with, I like you to recall my talk at , and also to note Sir Karl Popper's opening quote from Sir John Eccles the Nobel laureate reading: "I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success." Trial and error make up a vital, if not the best, way of learning. And, scientific revolutions were often ridiculed in the beginning.
 * So I would not be so determined to sort apparent pseudoscience out of normal science at once. Fortunately, notorious oligarchic peer-reviews out there are replaced by egalitarian counter-edits here. Note the communist experiment may have failed of oligarchy. Any oligarchic policy or tendency may fatally damage the open egalitarian image of the WMF projects, I do fear, so that they have a good reason to do their best to refrain from it. Or, the jealous may cry they are worse occupied by a minority of unknown origin and authority. They have to show up the unknown are not  vested institutional interests  as pointed out by H. G. Wells in the following:


 * -- KYPark [T] 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the Internet and the WWW on it were a utilitarian, egalitarian, liberalist, free-marketeer revolution. So everything on them could remain as such, I wish, including WMF in particular. Google withdrew from China, regretting censorship there, perhaps as many others are. Now WMF is an outstanding symbol of open systems (software and society) and free markets. What if its projects have to do more and more with oligarchic censorship? A number of people would feel like being betrayed, however necessary it may be in practice.
 * -- KYPark [T] 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fallen" into public domain
A mere matter of semantics, but do you think WV could start refering to works that have become Public Domain as "ascended into the Public Domain" rather than "fallen into the Public Domain", as is presently the case on the front page, where the Vameer is featured. --Leighblackall 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I said the same when my missus ascended pregnant ;-) Privatemusings 01:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC) language is as language does - can you really fight it?


 * "Fallen" in this case is about entropy. It's not a moral judgement. - WAS 4.250 12:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, all these quite sound like a private talk in the Colloquium. Am I hopelessly wrong? -- KYPark [T] 07:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but there isn't a separate Village Pump for talk like this. "Passed into the public domain" is more like what I'm used to, or something like that, and does this really matter enough to take up the time of those who look, later, through the archives, trying to find something? My answer is no, so, if there is no objection, I will delete this section, or move it to an appropriate Talk page, or anyone else can do that. --Abd 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For me this is a valid question here... --Gbaor 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For me "Fallen" also bears a more negative meaning, but frankly I never noticed this regarding to the "Fallen into public domain" expression --Gbaor 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the main page's featured content and changed the wording to "are in the public domain". I think that avoids the issue of what word to use entirely hopefully. -- dark lama  19:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I really think "transmuted" would sound erudite... Collect 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm partial to "broke the chains of artificial scarcity". WAS 4.250 00:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the change DarkLama. Thanks for the support for the topic Gbaor, I thought it was a valid question, and hope it will lead to more neutral language with regard to PD.. Sorry to those who feel it was a waste of their time. Leighblackall 11:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity mentioned
FYI, Wikiversity mentioned in the Telegraph in Who will admit that the Right ways are not the wrong ways? --Gbaor 11:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exciting! And some people tried to shut that page down. That just goes to show that we did the right thing there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is a problem, but the problem is that it would take some serious work by an experienced Wikiversitan (or someone else who understands Wikiversity concepts) to fix it. I don't see that it does significant harm, pending, though. Just that it would take the work to turn it into a true learning resource. Consider it under construction. --Abd 16:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is FYI for "for your information"? -- KYPark [T] 07:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Gbaor 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the good old FYR (for your reference) related to Old English fyr and Ancient Greek pyr meaning fire and light. -- KYPark [T] 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may see also . -- KYPark [T] 08:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Two policies need comment and approval
I have put up a proposal for a Child protection policy and have added an outing section to the proposed Privacy policy.

I would like people to take 3 days to discuss on the talk page both policies, and I would like at least 7 days following that discussion to vote on the matter. I believe that at least 10 people will be needed to ensure that the policies are passed without any problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that we'll need more than three days to discuss these policies. Child protection policy is completely new and there are likely many revision that will be needed before it can be considered to be declared as policy. Adambro 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it should be "at least" 3 days, meaning, I wont push for a vote before three days nor would I push for a close of a vote before 7 days after the start of the vote. I don't want a mishap like what happened just recently regarding the determining of a page a "policy" without a clear and structured process. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

These policies should be declared as policy, in my opinion, to diminish abuse. Diego Grez 19:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania + presentations about Wikiversity
 btw http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WikiversityWikimania2010.pdf  and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2010-July/002210.html  about the recordings of it later being uploaded to commons  am I wrong or is this info about presentations not even "told" @WV? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 03:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of JWSchmidt by Adambro - Vote and comment
If you have a view about the recent block of JWSchmidt by Adambro, please consider Voting and commenting. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I unblocked after a 24 hour period. I then warned JWS about continuing such behavior and asked him to start the Community Review on himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jtneill, this Colloquium is not really Acropolis of WV where its community members including myself are duly informed of what they should take seriously here, is it? That is to say, much earlier than yours, it should have made at least a reference or link to the bloody User talk:JWSchmidt that started two weeks ago, I greatly regret, not to mention what's going on there that long that harshly. Are they bullying him in the corner?
 * -- KYPark [T] 03:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KYPark, yours is a good reminder that we should be providing more regular updates/summaries to Colloquium on substantial discussions taking place on other pages. There is now this Community Review page Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds somewhat laughable to insist that policy pages can be edited as ever or readily as any page. Yeah, they could unless explicitly ruled out. Nulla poena sine lege (No penalty without a law.) So maybe more laughable to warn and block the editor instead of locking and keeping such pages from too frequent changes made by anyone. Maybe still more laughable to unblock the blocked editor and warn: "Ye should recognize (or confess in practice) what's wrong with ye!" my translation of an old Korean cliche corrupt officials often yelled, reading "ne joe-reul ne-ga allyeotta!" (네 죄를 네가 알렸다!) All My Way of making you laugh at all.
 * -- KYPark [T] 07:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's ludicrous the extent to which corrupt officials will go when they are trapped, like Javert, in the act of abusing the system of laws to carry on a vendetta against someone who is protesting an egregious miscarriage of justice. --Montana Mouse 09:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration with Conservapedia on "The Unborn Child"
I would like to recommend a collaboration with Conservapedia on a 12-week course known as "The Unborn Child." For more information, please see http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Other_Courses_Fall_2010 Thank you, Tisane 03:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have troubles with forum
I'm trying to open forum but sometimes there are no images on it :(
 * Errr forum? Can you link it?--Juan de Vojníkov 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The global village
--153.107.33.151 07:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a group of Australian students who are interested in talking to people from other countries. They are studying their own place in the global community.
 * well I'm from another country - but currently in Sydney ;-) - there are folk from further afield around here - but it's probably best to setup your own pages - perhaps with some questions, or explaining what you'd hope to achieve here - you can then invite people to take a look, and join in..... would you like some help with that? Privatemusings 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note from Cormaggio
(Regarding recent discussions about Moulton and other things on this page and here and here...)

Moulton has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of resisting causing unnecessary and disruptive drama. I don't know why people are now suggesting that, if unblocked, things will somehow be any different. I also don't know why people are suggesting that there being a global block on Moulton means that there is some leeway with a local unblock (which, I assume, is technically impossible). Moulton's block was not done 'from afar', but was discussed extensively by the Wikiversity community, with no discernible support from the community to remove the block (see, eg, Community_Review/Status_of_Moulton). Moulton's block has been problematic only because we didn't at the time have sufficient policies in place to deal with his brand of drama. (I'm not sure we have them at present either - and that's still problematic, as has been evident in Jimbo's intervention in the Ethical Breaching furore.) But Moulton has been given so many chances to work productively here - and blown them all - that I find it pretty incredible that we're still having this discussion.

I'd like to make a contribution to a more general discussion - about what is appropriate and inappropriate activity/behaviour in Wikiversity. I'd like to ask people here to think about (though not necessarily answer right here) the question: what do you want to achieve in Wikiversity? And related to that question: what practices do we need to define or develop in order to realise that vision? My take is that Wikiversity has been set up to develop a learning community, as well as to develop learning materials - and therefore needs robust processes, practices and policies to foster a sense of mutual understanding and an atmosphere conducive to collaboration. And, in my opinion, building a learning community necessarily entails defining boundaries about what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Does noone else find it worrying that Moulton asserts he has "an unalienable right to participate, by the very definition of Action Research"? (I do: people have a right to participate until they break the trust of the community.) Do people feel it is appropriate for JWSchmidt to continue being so aggressive in any discussion concerning authority and/or boundaries? (I don't, and I will plainly state that I believe JWSchmidt has been allowed to dominate such discussions by trolling.) I believe that if Wikiversity is to survive and flourish - which to me looks increasingly precarious, since the English Wikiversity is widely perceived as being dominated by trolls - then it needs to get serious about how it is to facilitate a learning community. Getting serious doesn't mean stopping having fun - rather, it means trying to make Wikiversity an enjoyable and encouraging place to work and learn.

Essentially, I believe that unblocking Moulton and inviting more drama would be a step backwards. Developing a clear sense of purpose and methodology in building a learning community - informed partly by dramas of the past, but without reigniting them - would be a major step forward. Cormaggio talk 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% on Moulton. Moulton's refusal to give up using people's real life names and to move on from 2 year old disputes was enough to show to me that he stop the problematic behavior. There are no rights to participate, and Moulton likes to assume rights that don't exist and demand for "contracts" but he cannot abide by the most simplistic of contracts. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. I agree completely. I can't think of anything more that needs to be said. -- dark lama  15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cormaggio, Moulton participated constructively at Wikiversity and then was viciously harassed by Wikipedians who came here and it was the Wikipedians who disrupted this project. Moulton was subjected to a bad block, made against community consensus. In an atmosphere of intimidation and fear, Moulton was subjected to some show trials and not given anything close to a fair hearing. "But Moulton has been given so many chances to work productively here - and blown them all" <-- Please list the Wikiversity policies that Moulton has violated. How does being subjected to rules and enforcement from another website amount to being given even one chance? Cormaggio, is it your intention to continue the bad practice of using rules from Wikipedia as a means to prevent Moulton from participating here? "they break the trust of the community" <-- Cormaggio, do you mean by sending a wiki hitman from Wikipedia to get a Wikiversity community member banned from Wikiversity? Cormaggio, do you mean by imposing a bad block, made against community consensus? Do you mean by intimidating the Wikiversity community by making threats against the continued existence of the project? Cormaggio, do you mean by publishing false accusations against me and using those false accusations to "justify" removing my custodianship, acting outside of the due process of Wikiversity policy? "unblocking Moulton and inviting more drama" <-- Wiki drama is caused by imposing bad blocks and bans on people and by those in positions of responsibility who act outside of Wikiversity policy. Moulton is not the source of drama, he is just an easy target for people who think the banhammer is an educational tool. Cormaggio, Please leave Moulton alone and let him continue his participation here as he peacefully did before he was targeted for elimination by outsiders from Wikipedia. Cormaggio, how can you act in this way to eliminate a scholar from participation at Wikiversity while ignoring those who have tormented him? --JWSchmidt 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "stop the problematic behavior" <-- Ottava Rima, the way ahead is to develop needed policies like Privacy policy, not punish someone who has violated no policy. We could have had a policy two years ago before Jimbo arrived, but certain people disrupted the development of needed policies. What about the rule of law? Why must Wikiversity be run like a witch hunt? Is using the name of a fellow Wikiversity participant really a problem? Has anyone actually been hurt or have a few people just used that as an excuse to game the system and eliminate Moulton? --JWSchmidt 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What matters is what can be done now, not what could of been done two years ago. If you keep focusing on what could of happened two years ago, another two years will pass before you know it. When a person continues to use the real name of a fellow Wikiversity participant after requesting that they stop, yes that really is a problem even if nobody is hurt by it. -- dark lama  16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "When a person continues to use the real name of a fellow Wikiversity participant after requesting that they stop, yes that really is a problem even if nobody is hurt by it." <-- Not in any authentic learning community. Why can't we use the names of fellow Wikiversity community members? No harm, no foul. If someone really wants anonymity then they can create an account that they have not linked to their real world identity. --JWSchmidt 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is always a way to link an anonymous person to their real world identity. How about because you have no right to use a person's real name? How about because you have no right to determine what is no harm? How about because you have no right to determine what is not harm for another person? -- dark lama  17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is all so simple then why not put it into a policy? --JWSchmidt 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton doesn't need a policy to do what I ask. He just doesn't want to do it at all. By the way, one need only see SB Johnny's threats to "ruin me" through harassing me irl, contacting people I know, etc, to know that Moulton's history of spreading personal information on others is severely problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton was viciously harassed by Wikipedians who followed him into the real world. Are you saying that we all have no defense against anonymous wiki thugs? Why not go after the thugs rather than Moulton? --JWSchmidt 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read WR, you'd see that I've been viciously harassed too, but I don't post their real life names and identities up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that others would leave Moulton defenseless against a gang of thugs is exactly why I must be "so aggressive", as Cormaggio put it. If I wasn't, I could not live with myself. I guess here in this "civilized" learning community it is just up to the old scholars to defend themselves. Is that what Wikiversity has to teach the world? --JWSchmidt 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By provoking Moulton to stoop to such lows, they won. Don't you see that? They caused him to cross a line that defeats any argument he could ever make and destroys any chance to be listened to in the future. The only way he can recover is to leave that area. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "stoop to such lows" <-- Ottava Rima, please go to Community Review/Problematic actions/Moulton and describe what you mean by "such lows". And this time don't create a show trial. Let Moulton defend himself against your accusations. Don't turn this into a witch hunt this time. I'd much rather have people collaborate to make needed guidelines like Privacy policy and make them official. I called for that to be done two years ago. Why can't we just do it? And I really think the way to do it is let Moulton help. He has much experience with online learning communities. Why must he be excluded because some people know how to game the system and pretend that it is a crime to use their name? Moulton can help make sure that Wikiversity is set up in a sensible way. Wikiversity does not have to be a clone of Wikipedia. Why ignore critics and warnings about the weaknesses of our ideas? Can't we listen to Moulton? Is it just easier to reach for the banhammer? Every time someone clubs him on the head he wins and Wikiversity looks more ridiculous. In third grade someone called you a name and you got mad. Now Moulton calls you by your name and you get mad? Does that mean we've now reached second grade? Let it go and look for ways to work with him. Moulton could be a great asset to this community if people would stop taunting him. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bringing up people's real life identities and the rest is a low and unacceptable behavior. You have been told that multiple times, as has Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling out the names of shady characters wearing hooded sheets whilst engaging in corrupt and reprehensible practices is a time-proven method of arresting such abuses. —Barry Kort 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also agree with the general theory, "don't kill" but if I was on a jury I might be persuaded by evidence to give a verdict of justifiable homicide. In the case of Moulton I believe he should have the chance to defend himself against all charges, call witnesses in his own defense, cross-examine his accusers. You know, it is called justice. Go to Community Review/Problematic actions/Moulton and make your accusations, but let Moulton defend himself through a process of just practices. Wikiversity is not a place for the kind of show trials that Moulton has been subjected to. I think you know the unacceptable behavior that Moulton was subjected to by his tormentors at Wikipedia and those tormenters followed him here and caused disruption. I defend Moultons right to defend himself and I want Wikiversity to give Moulton a fair chance to defend himself against his accusers. This is not Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy is not in effect here. I favor the creation of a privacy policy that protects anonymous editors and protects people like Moulton from thugs who hide behind their anonymity. --JWSchmidt 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me try another approach based on your fixation on the above language. Obviously, you aren't in a power or political position to determine what is fair, what wikiversity is meant to be, and the rest. Instead, you have been shown over the past two years that both you and Moulton are at the mercy of fickle admin who rely on arbitrary decisions. So, instead of claiming what should be, focus on what is. I provided the criteria that -I-, as a fickle admin relying on arbitrary decisions, would need to perform an unblock as a whim. You can say that is unjust or not right all you want, but it is how it is, and you can agree to the terms or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely so. Ottava admits that he and the other custodians have knowingly and intentionally set up an unjust and corrupt governance regime, so as to learn (by direct experience) how I or JWS will handle such an exceptional situation. And I have responded by adopting the practices taught by Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King — namely civil disobedience. To the best of my knowledge, those are the ethical best practices under the current problematic situation. Moulton 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To continue with your logic: in this fascist state, civil disobedience is still disobedience, and disobedience results in excessive blocks and a burnt earth policy. So, you can obey or you can be responsible with us that there are tons of innocent people harmed. Are you immune to the guilt caused by your unwillingness to stop using people's real names? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it pleases you to burn Wikiversity to the ground, rather than evolve to a 21st Century learning community committed to ethical best practices, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your banhammerama? —Moulton 02:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton, schools have the ability to come up with their own conduct policies. You failed to abide by it after multiple warnings from those in charge of the school. You were expelled. That was your own fault. That is the 21st century. You can abide by it or not, but you are currently acting like a lawless animal and not as a civilized human. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, Ottava. If your objective here is to teach the Fundamentals of Bondage and Discipline, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of getting off on your fetish.  --Moulton  04:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "tons of innocent people harmed" <-- As a scientist, I have spent decades studying cause and effect in a complex system, the human brain. In comparison to a brain, the situation here is very simple. A group of POV pushers at Wikipedia created an article that violated the BLP policy. Moulton called them on their unethical practice of using anonymous wiki accounts to publish false claims about a living person. Wikipedians, rather than repair the bogus BLP, kicked Moulton out and viciously harassed him off-wiki. Those Wikipedians sent a sock puppeting wiki hitman to Wikiversity to get him banned from this project. They gamed Jimbo into blocking Moulton against Wikiversity community consensus. Moulton was subjected to an assortment of show trials and witch hunts while the Wikiversity community was under external threat and harassment. In this chain of events the guilt rests on the parties who violated BLP policy and attacked Moulton rather than fix the bogus BLP. Moulton should be given an honest chance to defend himself against any lingering charges. I'm not aware that anyone has been harmed at Wikiversity by having someone use their real name. I think a scholarly community of collaborating learners should adopt conventional educational practices and allow Wikiversity community members to use each others names. If the community makes a policy restricting the use of names, I will respect that, but there should also be protections against anonymous editors who publish false claims about living people. It is time for Wikiversity to stand up to invading thugs and their wiki-cop banhammer approach. We can return Wikiversity to the congenial atmosphere that existed from 2006 - 2008. The more blocks and bans imposed on Wikiversity scholars the more ludicrous the Wikimedia Foundation looks in the eyes of the world. A non-profit educational foundation cannot long sustain a culture of abuse and injustice. Now is the time to take Wikiversity back and restore tranquility and sanity. --JWSchmidt 02:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JWS, if he didn't out people he wouldn't have given them an excuse to ban. It is that simple. If he would have stayed within the rules then they would have been removed for their disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, care to support your accusation with evidence? Care to let Moulton defend himself and cross-examine those who have made accusations against him? Or is this just going to be another WMF witch hunt? I'm a scientist. show me the evidence, let Moulton present his defense, prove your case. This is Wikiversity and we don't follow the rules of Wikipedia. What Wikiversity policy did Moulton violate? Justice is not a cop with a gun and excuse. Moulton is innocent until proven guilty. This is a scholarly learning community, not a wiki-cop MMORPG where thugs bash scholars on the head with their toy banhammers. --JWSchmidt 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * References? You remember the names in his "song parodies". You remember how he used my name multiple times. I had to go through his archives and remove the entries because I wasn't able to clean it all when it first happened. He tosses around real names left and right. Even if it never happened in the past, he can still agree to not doing it in the future. I don't care if there is a policy or not. Right now, he has to do that to get back in. It isn't questionable, debatable, or anything else. It is the one clear standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The need for something like the proposed Wikiversity Privacy Policy is under community review. Your comments at that review are welcome. You remember the names in his "song parodies" <--No, I do not. I doubt if there were any. Do you have evidence that there were? "he used my name multiple times" <-- Moulton often uses my name and I hardly notice his cordial way of referring to me. Until Wikiversity has a policy that forbids collaborating Wikiversity scholars from using each others names I will continue to defend his right to do so. "go through his archives and remove the entries" <-- Please provide links to the removals you are talking about. "It is the one clear standard" <-- If it is so clear then you should be able to link to the Wikiversity policy where this "clear standard" is expounded. --JWSchmidt 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that isn't how things work. There is no policy keeping me from blocking people who post names. So, until Wikiversity has a policy, I will continue to enforce the blocks. Therefore, if Moulton wants back in, he knows 100% what to do. This isn't negotiable - he needs to give up using people's real names and identities. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I will continue to enforce the blocks" <-- JWSchmidt says, "What block are you talking about"? "Nay!" Beetlebaum says, "Neigh!" "We will not submit" --the winner..... Beetlebaum

In William Morris’s 1890 utopia News from Nowhere, there is a very short chapter, ‘Concerning Politics’. The visitor, William Guest, asks his informant ‘How do you manage with politics?’. He receives the reply ‘… we are very well off as to politics, - because we have none.’ This lecture is about the relationship between sociology and utopia, and some might expect it to be equally brief, and for the same reason, that there is none.

H. G. Wells, however, whose A Modern Utopia was published a hundred years ago this year, thought otherwise. He argued that:

… the creation of utopias – and their exhaustive criticism – is the proper and distinctive method of sociology (Wells 1914: 204)

the key to the problem lies within the actual knowing of how all energy works. which is something I can expand upon using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=374213855 and can I ask if there is a difference when both are typed in.

AND the Koide formula. as well as thermodynamics to my advantage as well as infinite monkey theorem to make a new kind of shakespear. They say these days he had many unknown writters, just as I am in my day and time. july 19, 2010 --M00se1989 03:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cormac's appeal, and therefore i would like to make a few propositions to help Wikiversity:
 * There used to be an agreement that the conflicts between members would be discarded from the Colloquium. The colloquium should be in the first place a page for ideas about Wikiversity and not about fights within the community of Wikiversity. These fights can better be handled by those within the community who will act as referee or middleman to end conflicts.


 * Other solutions are less easy.
 * One could be: Organize certain themes within classic fields of science, like studying Darwin, or a period in history, or making a subject of physics more understandible for common people and talk about that in the colloquium.
 * There could be tasks for users, to organize Wikiversity in certain ways. Companies use that a lot. I know from my father's company that tasks were scheduled to certain employees, whithin a certain time frame. Problemis that many people won't like to be part of such a rigid organization, especially when it is volunteer work.
 * Wikiversity could try to make learning materials and learning subjects more entertaining and less technocratic. This could lure more people from the outside.


 * I got plenty of time, because i am still unemployed. Though, the chances for jobs are better, but it will probably be a lousy one, so i would like to do something for Wikiversity. I have read a lot of books the past years and was worried about my own future. And so, i am excited about the idea of how to live life in a full and exciting way. That's an old enlightenment and romantic ideal taken over from the ancient Greeks and Romans. We could spend our times doing a shitty job and watching shitty tv, or go to certain internet pages i won't mention. But, maybe there is more to life, and that is something Wikiversity could be about.Daanschr 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How To Build A Pykrete Bong
Why did someone import the above page? Did someone bother to read it first? This diff just revealed one problem among many. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the reasons why it was deleted originally. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should be able to see from the edit history that it was imported by User:Diego Grez following this request. You might wish to direct your questions to Diego Grez in the first instance. Adambro 13:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Diego wasn't the only one responsible - there was a discussion on WikiBooks also. I'm looking for a reason why it would be imported or if there is none at all for it to be (and thus it will be removed). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My understand is that Pykrete is a valid educational topic, but the use of Pykrete to make a Bong is original and thus belongs at Wikiversity because Wikibooks does not accept books on original ideas. Does that help? -- dark lama  19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have any questions about what was going on at the wikibooks side of things I would be glad to put in my two cents, being fairly involved in this particular RfD. Generally speaking the scope of WV is very unclear to the wikibooks folks, which I suppose is understandable.  So anytime a page is nominated for deletion that contains OR/POV  someone comments this is allowed at wikiversity so we should put it there.  This has been coming up a lot lately because we have had some new editors come in and start to be fairly active about looking at old abandoned books.
 * To some editors feel we are dumping wikibooks trash on wikiversity. To others this is seen a way to share with wikiversity valuable educational material that doesn't happen to fall in wikibooks scope.  Overall both sides seem to wish there was a more structured way we could get the wikiversity community's input on transwiki's, but it is unclear the best way to go about doing that.
 * Diego his part has been helpful in providing some guidance, as has Darklama who is fairly active on both projects. I personally never felt it fell into the scope here, but acquiesced to a transwiki not being familiar enough with the other resources to know for sure. Thenub314 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Ottava, I would assume simply that it was imported because Diego felt it falls within our project scope. Diego was solely responsible for importing it, it was for him to make a judgement as to whether that was appropriate. Diego has shown by declining to import How To Do Nothing that he isn't blindly dealing with import requests so I don't see who else can be considered responsible in this case. If you disagree with Diego then you should discuss this with him. I note you've not raised this on his talk page before raising it here or notified him of this discussion. That would be wise since he is most able to explain why he chose to import it. If after discussing this with Diego you are unable to agree that it falls within the project scope then I'd suggest taking it to Deletion requests. Adambro 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is kinda educational in my opinion, and I imported it because it was going to be deleted, and it can be surely useful for someone here. After all, Wikiversity is for learning resources, and this certainly teaches how to build the bong, as the title suggests. Diego Grez 20:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the Moulton situation
I would welcome clarification of the current Moulton situation. Please see here. Adambro 13:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and has now been unblocked. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". One Wikiversity Custodian has stated his intention to enforce the account lock and has been reverting Moulton's edits1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Can anyone explain the basis in Wikiversity policy for reverting Moulton's edits? --JWSchmidt 01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: Moulton was blocked again. Ottava Rima imposed the block and claimed that he blocked Moulton because Moulton was banned by the Wikiversity community, but he has provided no evidence to support that claim. The new block is under community review. --JWSchmidt 03:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Swedish Month
Wikiversity is getting a bit tired and splintered. What you folks need is a gimmick to bring the community together, and have cooperation on something positive for a change.

Therefore, with the power vested in me by the consensus of the most august #wikiversity IRC channel, I hereby declare Swedish Month, a 30-day collaboration on all learning topics connected to this charming Scandinavian land. Bring on the spicy meatballs!--Pharos 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * is gravlax swedish? hope so.... either ways, I'm going for a sauna.... Privatemusings 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution committee
Requests for comment at the Wikimedia meta-wiki: proposed Dispute resolution committee "which would serve as arbitration committee for projects without arbitration committees". --JWSchmidt 16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This potentially has a lot of value. I was at a small wiki without an Arbcom before this and one of the main reasons I left is that I felt trying to engage in an arbcom would split the community.  Sometimes having a uninvolved people to mediate would have gone a long way to resolve that dispute. Thenub314 16:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has disaster written all over it since "uninvolved people" have openly called for the destruction of Wikiversity and have already done vast damage to the Wikiversity community through their unwise interference in Wikiversity community matters. --JWSchmidt 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I may not agree with the concept of closing wikiversity, it certainly should be open for discussion. Some of those outside participants who took part in the RfC, and suggestion shutting wv down are people who have over the years earned my respect in other settings.  I would easily trust them to be an fair and unbiased judge if we asked it of them. Thenub314 17:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Particularly Kayau and Dmcq) Besides the proposal is clearly wiki's which don't have an Arb. Comittee. So, assuming such a thing ever pass, and there is community consensus that it doesn't belong here, all that needs to be done is set up some conflict resolution process.  With such a thing you could easily tel the Dispute resolution committee what to go do with itself.  But for other wiki's I am sure it could be a good thing. Thenub314 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Research Paper for Class
I am currently taking a class on Teaching English as a Foreign Language. I recently finished a paper and published it in my user profile. My question is, are student paper's appropriate for Wikiversity?

I believe it is, because it has a chance to be helpful for someone else interested in the topic, is open to improvement from the community which might lead interesting places and I feel Wikiversity might be a good place for students and teachers to host their electronic portfolios.

Interested to hear what you all think.

--Charles Jeffrey Danoff 06:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have changed from calling it a paper to an essay, which I believe is more appropriate, though I want people to edit it and/or comment, so perhaps I should be calling it something else? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 06:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ottava. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikibooks RFDs
Wikiversitarians have an opportunity to comment on two requests for deletion at Wikibooks, where Towards A Better India and Wiki Science have been nominated for transwiki here as a result of original research issues. Adrignola 19:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to create a Cite namespace

 * Moved to Colloquium/Cite namespace as suggested by SPEED LIMIT 30.
 * -- KYPark [T] 05:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Note from KYPark

 * Moved to Colloquium/Note from KYPark as suggested by SPEED LIMIT 30.
 * -- KYPark [T] 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Large range blocks
Hi. I want to know why these lots of range blocks were made. They were used by Moulton, but surely these blocks might affect much more people. Diego Grez 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a large range of IPs and it is a shame. It is a very difficult situation to know what to do.  But I think we will probably unblock some of those IPs in the near or distant future.  Even if we don't he could always start using open proxies, and he is well aware of this.  So before we proceed further we should develop a clear guideline for custodians as to how to handle his edits.  Without this guideline there will just be more cries of foul play and further community reviews. Thenub314 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we unblock him, and prioritise the creation of sensible policies that all must follow - I reckon we'd go alright :-) Privatemusings 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The block that was imposed on Moulton is under community review. As far as I can tell, Adambro is still enforcing the absurd lock that was put on Moulton's account. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Some sysops have declared that they can unilaterally declare blocks and bans, regardless of what Wikiversity policy or community consensus says. Moulton should be unblocked immediately. Moulton's good faith edits should not have been treated like vandalism and all the blocks of IP ranges should be cleared. It is an embarrassment to Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation that a scholarly expert in online learning communities is being excluded from Wikiversity by the misguided actions of two capricious sysops. --JWSchmidt 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are policy reasons for continuing to enforce the block of Moulton, but that does not mean that we could not negotiate with him for some resolution of the situation that is acceptable to both him and the community; my sense was that this might be possible, but not while we have custodians who will act to prevent reconciliation, to make "block enforcement" a priority over benefit to the project. There is a much clearer case, the situation of Thekohser, who was just reblocked by Adambro after I unblocked him upon two findings: that no clear reason for the original block had been established, and that he had demonstrated exemplary cooperation; truly disruptive users don't cooperate with blocks as he did. Whether or not he would continue to be "non-disruptive" is beside the point, because we do not know, in fact, that, not just for Thekohser, but for any user.

However, as to Moulton, when the Moulton account was unblocked by Darklama, I went ahead and unblocked the acknowledged sock, Caprice. In my view, from an unblock situation, reblock should not take place unless new disruptive behavior appears. I had seen, as it seemed that some edits from Moulton might be allowed to stand, an improvement of Moulton behavior. Moulton is a critic, no doubt about it, but not all criticism is disruptive and some is even necessary. I did not see any waiting for new disruptive behavior, just inertia. I did look back at the Community Review that has been cited as justification for the Moulton block, and that Review was, in fact, not conclusive, there was no clear consensus. Continuing to block Moulton, nevertheless, has much stronger basis than the same thing for Thekohser. And until we can find a way to find true consensus on Thekohser, we are not at all likely to find it on Moulton.

A mindless insistence that blocks must be respected, that enforcement of them is a crucial and fundamental policy, flies in the fact of a basic organizational principle: don't create unenforceable rules. We cannot stop Moulton from editing, per se, without causing massive collateral damage, and even if we were willing to tolerate that damage, he'd still find ways around it, and, consider this: someone like JWS could simply put up the same arguments, as he has, in fact, been doing. So what is the block preventing? Rather, it seems to me, it's causing more disruption than it is preventing. Given that, it should have strong consensus, and it clearly does not. Hence we have a few administrators, nearly all that are left as active, running and enforcing personal opinions, with a community that is mostly absent, for whatever reason. I fully understand why Jimbo felt it necessary to intervene! -- even though I don't necessarily agree with the actions he took. --Abd 00:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "There are policy reasons for continuing to enforce the block" <-- Abd, please name one reason. "Continuing to block Moulton, nevertheless, has much stronger basis than the same thing for Thekohser." <-- Abd, please provide one reason for blocking Moulton. Calling for an unjustified block is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. "a way to find true consensus" <-- There can be no "true consensus" for anything that damages the Wikiversity mission. Abd, how does preventing participation by a scholarly expert in online learning communities, someone who has done no harm and violated no policy, advance the Wikiversity Mission? "Hence we have a few administrators, nearly all that are left as active, running and enforcing personal opinions, with a community that is mostly absent, for whatever reason" <-- It is not "for whatever reason"; almost all of the Wikiversity community left in disgust. You can't have a healthy collaborative learning community where a few misguided sysops persistently disrupt the community. --JWSchmidt 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS, I suggested a topic ban on this for you because, frankly, you haven't a clue what you are doing. You were quite deeply offended by what happened in 2008 and after, and it's quite understandable, but your views are extreme and fail to understand the other side, consistently. Hence your continued participation in this sheds more heat than light. With every comment you ask a series of questions, questions where, in fact, the answers have long been obvious. It eats time to read and respond, but, from experience, no value results, there will simply be more questions asked, more demands, etc. Normally, then, I'm insisting that someone else echo questions from you, to show that they should actually receive answers. Call it a requirement for a motion to be seconded before being debated. I did, in fact, with the proposed topic ban, set up a procedure whereby you could still participate in any discussion, but with this requirement of a second, very simple, very easy, non-disruptive. And, in fact, so could Moulton or any other blocked or banned editor. But who is paying attention?
 * I am, however, going to answer one question, your first. Please name one reason for blocking Moulton. There are many, but I'm going to start with the obvious one. He's been blocked and has been evading the block by IP socking. That is a blockable offense in itself, and must be. You may certainly argue that he should not have been blocked, but, remember, John, I've been blocked and I know general wiki policy and the theory underlying it. When blocked, I did not evade the block, no matter how bad it was. Period. That is the norm and is what is expected. Rather, I would (and have) requested unblock and/or pursued recourse through escalating discussion or whatever legitimate means were available. While a limited usage of socking could be considered justified where there is no reasonable alternative, and a contribution is critical, that does not ever apply to revert warring as an IP editor, as Moulton recently did. This is consistent with standard practice in all academic institutions, where our "custodian" is, with respect to blocks, like the campus police. --Abd 01:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "the answers have long been obvious" <-- When you make accusations against a Wikiversity community member and fail to provide examples, evidence and reasoning to support your claims of what you feel is "obvious" then it is obvious that you are disrupting Wikiversity by making unjustified accusations. "there will simply be more questions asked, more demands" <-- You can end the questioning by providing examples, evidence and reasoning to support your claims and let Moulton defend himself against your accusations. "I'm insisting that someone else echo questions from you" <-- I have no idea what you are talking about. Rather than avoiding your Custodial obligations, why can't you just provide examples, evidence and reasoning to support your claims and let Moulton defend himself against your accusations? "That is a blockable offense" <-- Abd, please cite Wikiversity policy to support your claim. Moulton was subjected to an absurdly bad block. He has continued to make useful and good faith contributions to Wikiversity. Abd, why to you want to turn his constructive edits into crimes? "That is the norm and is what is expected" <-- Abd, don't try to bring destructive practices from other websites into this collaborative learning community. At Wikiversity, all good faith edits are welcome. Why do you insist on further alienating Wikiversity community members who are sickened by the abuse that Moulton has been subjected to? This is consistent with standard practice in all academic institutions, where our "custodian" is, with respect to blocks, like the campus police. <-- Abd, Custodians clean up obvious vandalism. In any real world educational institution, if a janitor bashed a scholar over the head with a banhammer, the janitor would we thrown in jail. If the arrested janitor started claiming to be a campus policeman, he'd probably end up being treated for mental illness. --JWSchmidt 02:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above make my point. Simple question: a request for one reason. One reason given. In response, many more questions asked, no acknowledgment of given answer. Janitors are not given "banhammers." Those would be police tools. Activist stands up in faculty meeting and speaks out of order. Sergeant-at-arms or police officer conducts activist from meeting. ("Bans" him, though strictly speaking it would be the meeting chair who would routinely order the removal.) If activist struggles with lawful orders of police officer (given the discretion accorded the officer), activist may be charged with additional offense. Resisting arrest is a crime regardless of the disposition of some original charges. If you think WV "custodians" are only janitors, you should ask for the block tools to be removed from the tool set. Now, who has been "bashed over the head"? Near as I can tell, Moulton's head is just fine, perhaps a few loose screws, nothing that couldn't be fixed. Is Moulton a "scholar"? I'd call him something else, an "educational activist," he's pretty explicit about what he does, I've had a great deal of direct correspondence with him, and he is deliberately disruptive, it's part of what he does, he knows it and is proud of it, and he sometimes does it well. Your position, JWS, is bizarre and completely out of touch with reality. I think we should, indeed, have a place for Moulton, but not without reasonable restrictions. Your own disruption makes it more difficult to negotiate those, inflames response from custodians, and generally stirs up the shit. Hence I requested that a custodian review your behavior and make an independent assessment. That didn't happen except for Adambro, who shouldn't have touched his block button. So, instead we got endless discussion that seems to go nowhere, which is why I'm concluding that WV may be hopeless, it's paralyzed. And you are helping to keep it that way. --Abd 04:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * a request for one reason. One reason given. In response, many more questions asked, no acknowledgment of given answer" <-- You claimed to give an "obvious" answer to to my request. Your "reason", a claim saying that Moulton committed a "blockable offense", was not a factual claim. Of course I questioned your claim, since you made an unjustified accusation of wrong-doing against a Wikiversity participant. "speaks out of order" <-- Are you saying that Moulton "spoke out of order"? Making good faith and constructive contributions to Wikiversity is not speaking out of order. "it would be the meeting chair who would routinely order the removal" <-- At Wikiversity it would be the community, acting by consensus. "If you think WV "custodians" are only janitors, you should ask for the block tools to be removed from the tool set" <-- It is better to ask that sysops follow existing policy and that the community acknowledge that the proposed policy on blocking is official Wikiversity policy. who has been "bashed over the head"? <-- Moulton, who had done nothing wrong, was subjected to a block that was imposed against Wikiversity community consensus. "he is deliberately disruptive" <-- Abd, provide one example of how Moulton has been deliberately disruptive. "he is deliberately disruptive, it's part of what he does, he knows it and is proud of it" <-- Abd, please unblock Moulton and let him defend himself against your wild accusations. "JWS, is bizarre and completely out of touch with reality" <-- Abd, please provide some evidence to support your medical diagnosis. What are your medical credentials? What evidence to you have to support your offensive claim about my state of mind? "Your own disruption" <-- Abd, please give one link to a disruptive edit that I have made. "WV may be hopeless, it's paralyzed. And you are helping to keep it that way" <-- I have made several proposals for how to improve Wikiversity. Abd, please participate in the community review and provide your ideas for how to improve Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 10:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton is disruptive?

 * Moulton is disruptive, prone to harassment, doesn't have a problem using Wikiversity as an advocacy platform, and hasn't provided any decent educational content that universities or highschools could use to cover core areas regardless of protests to the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Active listening.OGG|thumb|right|Audio made using [[Wikiversity:Teamspeak|Teamspeak]]. This is an example of using teamspeak for language learning (active listening). User:Moulton, User:Sundance Raphael and User:JWSchmidt can be heard.]]"Moulton is disruptive" <-- Moulton was participating constructively at Wikiversity in 2008. "prone to harassment" <-- In 2008, Moulton was harassed and targeted for elimination by a few Wikipedians who disrupted Wikiversity. Here in 2010, Moulton is being harassed by a few misguided sysops who don't even allow him to participate in the community review where he should be allowed to defend himself against your accusations. "advocacy" <-- Moulton is an advocate for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. He also advocates for the idea that Wikiversity should be an authentic learning community, not a parade ground for sysops using their toy banhammers to club scholars and disrupt the Wikiversity Mission. "decent educational content" <-- Moulton was just getting started at Wikiversity when he was viciously attacked by a gang of thugs. Ottava Rima, please remove your block and let Moulton return to working with his collaborators. If you can't do that then at least let him defend himself against your accusations. --JWSchmidt 02:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Playing multiple "characters" to put on a "theatre show" that involves the harassment of users and disruption of Wikiversity is vandalism. It could even be considered a primary example of vandalism that should be put up on a policy page on how to spot vandalism. You should know that and your dissimulation above suggests a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Its not 2008. Get over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What a confusion!


 * Ottava made it clear that he'd have Moulton blocked regardless of any policies, but simply because Moulton uses people's real names. This regardlessness caused me to start and its first part  aiming to reassure it, where Ottava tacitly reassured it. Now Ottava newly mentions Moulton's vandalism, suggesting the violation of the relevant policy! hence sounding so inconsistent that I am painfully confused, I fear. Am I the only one so confused in this universe?
 * -- KYPark [T] 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Playing multiple "characters" to put on a "theatre show" that involves the harassment of users and disruption of Wikiversity is vandalism" <-- No good faith edit is vandalism. "the harassment of users" <-- Moulton has not harassed anyone. Moulton was participating constructively at Wikiversity when he was targeted for elimination by a gang of harassing Wikipedians who followed him from Wikipedia to Wikiversity. Ottava Rima, please provide evidence that Moulton has harassed someone and let Moulton defend himself against your accusations. "theatre show" <-- Ottava Rima, if you don't like Moulton's learning style then please ignore his contributions to Wikiversity. If abusive puppets like "Salmon of Doubt" can participate at Wikiversity then Moulton can participate with his didactic characters. "your dissimulation above suggests a problem" <-- Ottava Rima, please provide one link to an edit where I have displayed an intent to deceive. Ottava Rima, lest someone suspect you of dissimulation, please provide evidence to support your accusations against Moulton. --JWSchmidt 10:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Am I the only one so confused in this universe?" <-- This is the way it has been at Wikiversity since 2008. A few misguided sysops persistently disrupt Wikiversity by making unsubstantiated accusations against Wikiversity community members. This is the subject of community review. KYPark, please participate in the community review. Moulton should be allowed to freely participate in the community review of his participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been too confused and perplexed to be willing to be further intertwined. JWSchmidt, please understand I'm a month old here. In that capacity, however, I try to figure out what's wrong here besides your apparently thorough accusation, though I'm such an empiricist that no seasoning no reasoning! For instance, I have no idea yet how to respond to "Yes! This is a haven for original research." -- KYPark [T] 11:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "good faith" about any of your edits since July 2008. You lost any ability for people to assume such a long time ago with your behavior and actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava, don't you see I'm rather indirectly appealing to you that I'm painfully confused because of your inconsistent reasoning? Do you have no idea about that at all? -- KYPark [T] 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the kind of slip that happens when we get way too involved in a situation, Ottava, above, apparently responded to JWS, but after KYPark's comment, making it look like he was accusing KYPark of not making good faith edits. However, the comment puzzles me. JWS is current engaged in massive disruption, starting discussions all over the place and arguing tendentiously and endlessly, as far as I can see, while hearing practically nothing of what is said to him, I've seen no movement or apology for even the smallest, most inconsequential errors, not to mention worse errors that are also clear. This could indeed be a sign of bad faith editing, i.e., that the editor is deliberately causing offense and not arguing sincerely. If Ottava believes that JWS is not editing in good faith, why did he unblock JWS? He could reverse that decision, you know, it is always acceptable for an admin who last acted on an object (page, user account, blacklisting, etc.) to reverse it without further ado, and without consideration of recusal policy. Once another admin has touched the object, recusal rules again apply. This is why, indeed, if we don't like an custodial action, our first recourse should always be to request the custodian reverse it, not claim that the custodian was biased,, etc. Even if biased or wrong, surely, then, the admin could reverse the action and avoid the necessity for further consideration by another custodian, expanded discussion, etc., etc. So why does Ottava leave JWS unblocked while at the same time claiming that JWS is not editing in good faith, which would surely, under the conditions, merit withdrawing the unblock by reblocking.
 * Quite like Moulton, JWS's farrago of complaints, objections, and questions continually tempts custodians and others to defend the indefensible or attack what should not be attacked, it invites them to make mistakes in response, which then justifies further complaints. That is the essence of "trolling," in fact, if deliberate, it is an attempt to provoke others to intemperate response. It is having that effect whether or not JWS intends it. Which is why I suggested a topic ban, not a block, and even provided within the suggestion for ways in which JWS could continue legitimate criticism and questioning. And ... the proposal went over like a lead balloon, except for, say KYPark and a few others, who seem to realize what is being offered. Given the level of mess continually expanding, I'm about to decide that this is, indeed, an emergency, which would require me to disregard my own prior interpretation of recusal policy. I'll be careful, and I'll do nothing that could not easily be undone, and I know how to do it properly. Essentially, I would declare a topic ban myself, and an intention to enforce it, unless consensus or other clear impediment arises first. --Abd 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I surely knew Ottava was responding to JWS, though he may have misaligned his comment. But Ottava would better have responded to me as well, as I was expecting. Thus I just took that chance to require him to answer me. So do I again. Whether disruptive or not, I also know JWS is exceptionally thorough, and you appear next to him. :) Anyway it is an agonizing shame that the whole discussion looks trapped by a vicious circle, regardless of good faith or disruption. At the moment, I'd suggest the immediate unconditional unblocking of "sane vandals" be the simplest and beauty-fullest escape from that vicious trap. Full stop. Again I greatly appreciate your effort to straight things. -- KYPark [T] 03:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "JWS is current engaged in massive disruption" <-- Abd, please provide links to my "errors" or retract you accusation that I am causing "massive disruption". "JWS's farrago of complaints, objections, and questions continually tempts custodians and others to defend the indefensible" <-- Abd, can you justify your use of the term "farrago"? When sysops fail to respond to questions about their misguided and damaging actions, their failure to respond makes it appear that their actions are indefensible. "That is the essence of "trolling," in fact, if deliberate, it is an attempt to provoke others to intemperate response." <-- Abd, are you accusing me of trolling? "I would declare a topic ban myself" <-- Abd, calling for unjustified bans is a serious violation of policy. --JWSchmidt 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "There is nothing "good faith" about any of your edits since July 2008. You lost any ability for people to assume such a long time ago with your behavior and actions" <-- Ottava Rima, you seem to be making a rather sweeping accusation against me. Ottava Rima, please go to the community review and provide evidence to support your claim. For example, when Adambro said, "Should we really bother accommodating Moulton when he has no intention of actually contributing to the project?", Adambro was failing to assume good faith with respect to Moulton. When User:Abd said, "Very strange, you are making a great fuss about this possible slip by Adambro, revealing information that was public record on meta, and that you acknowledged, while at the same time you defend Moulton for using the real name of a Wikiversity user when he clearly knew that this was offensive to the user.", he made the bad faith assumption that Moulton was intentionally trying to offend someone. Ottava Rima, please link to similar edits by me that show where I failed to assume good faith. --JWSchmidt 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS tosses piles of mud, then asks complex questions, often distracting from the mud tossed. I'm going to respond here to one issue, the revision-deleted comment made by Moulton as Caprice. Ottava had made a proposal to unblock Moulton if Moulton agreed to not "mention anyone's real life name." The Caprice edit took a section header created by Ottava, "My proposal," and changed the header to be Ottava's real and full name, "Proposal of [full real name]." Changing a section header like that could be offensive even if not for outing. Moulton tossed in, as well, severe incivility quite aside from the outing. Even beyond the direct defiance shown, basically spitting in Ottava's face, and given that Moulton already knew that outing was unacceptable -- it was a big issue before in the sequence that led to his original block, if I'm correct -- this was deliberate trolling, he knew full well what would happen, and which did happen: Adambro deleted the revision and blocked Caprice access to the talk page. This sequence shows clearly that Moulton was intending to offend. Adambro being the blocking admin might raise some eyebrows, but the block was then confirmed by Diego Grez, who had allowed the Caprice talk page access in the first place (the account was apparently created by an agreement with Moulton). Given that some of us have had extensive discussion with Moulton off-wiki, as well as familiarity with his comments here, to charge us with a failure to assume good faith when we simply state what we clearly know is, itself, a civility offense. Moulton is very open about what he is doing, and I consider it possible that there is a place for it at Wikiversity, but not unrestrained, as with that edit. If not for that edit, and if Moulton had decided to agree to not "out" editors, that simple, he'd have been unblocked with no fuss, and then we could have started looking at an unlock request. But that would have ruined the opportunity to endlessly complain, eh? Moulton has made it very clear that he prefers to be blocked, and that is certainly understandable to me. I'm not complaining about Moulton, I'm warning you about your behavior, JWS, here and in other places, currently on Wikiversity. --Abd 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "JWS tosses piles of mud" <-- I find it odd that you begin a warning about incivility by making such a claim. Abd, please provide evidence that I "toss mud". "the direct defiance shown, basically spitting in Ottava's face" <-- I think this is close to the heart of the matter. We must all ask: is it a wikicrime to defy the absurd request of a misguided sysop? No. "Moulton already knew that outing was unacceptable" <-- If you are trying to insinuate that using someone's name is "outing" then I have to disagree. Collaborating learners have always used each others names at Wikiversity. If you want to change that, then make a policy about it. "This sequence shows clearly that Moulton was intending to offend" <-- I don't follow your argument. I can't see the edit, but I believe that Moulton was probably defending himself against misguided actions by a sysop. Abd, Moulton should be unblocked and allowed to defend himself against your accusations and Ottava's unjustified block at the community review. "Given that some of us have had extensive discussion with Moulton off-wiki, as well as familiarity with his comments here, to charge us with a failure to assume good faith when we simply state what we clearly know is, itself, a civility offense." <-- I am skeptical about your claim to "clearly know" about Moulton's intentions. Abd, Moulton should be unblocked and allowed to defend himself against your claims and Ottava's unjustified block at the community review. My asking you to provide evidence to support your accusations and claims is not a failure to assume good faith. When you make seemingly absurd claims about Moulton's intentions I have every right to ask for the evidence that supports your claims. "But that would have ruined the opportunity to endlessly complain, eh?" <-- I'm not sure what you are insinuating. It was absurd for Ottava to make a ridiculous proposal to Moulton. Moulton would have to be a fool to accept the "offer" that he was asked to accept. Moulton should be allowed to collaborate with those of us at Wikiversity who want to work with him on learning projects. There is no need for any special "deals" or "offers". "I'm warning you about your behavior, JWS" <-- I don't understand the nature of your warning. You have apparently accused me of failing to assume good faith and "a civility offense", but your "reasoning" is muddled and I don't understand your charges. You continue to make claims about Moultons intentions, with no evidence. Abd, Moulton should be unblocked and allowed to defend himself against your accusations at the community review. If you have charges against me, then please take them to the other community review and present some evidence to support your charges. --JWSchmidt 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser

 * Moved to Colloquium/2010/Thekohser as suggested by User:Abd in the end. You may talk more there. -- KYPark [T] 02:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy
Some people have expressed their opinion about the proposed privacy policy. Come make your voice heard! Thenub314 15:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruption of the collaborative development of the proposed privacy policy is under community review. --JWSchmidt 22:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Child protection policy
If you're interested in this area, please review the policy and the talk page and offer any thoughts :-) thanks, Privatemusings 01:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem of references to researches
There was a question. Some researches are carried out in Russian Vikiversitete in biology which already have results. In Russian Vikipedii references to these researches (only references as on the brotherly project) have been given. They have been removed, under a pretext original researches. Whether I wish to learn has similar in English Vikiversitete/Vikipedii and as affairs here are.

(Появился вопрос. В русском Викиверситете проводятся некоторые исследования по биологии, которые уже имеют результаты. В русской Википедии были даны ссылки на эти исследования (только ссылки как на братский проект). Они были удалены, под предлогом оригинальные маргинальные исследования. Хочу узнать имеет ли подобное в английском Викиверситете/Википедии, и как тут обстоят дела.) SergeyJ 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally, original research is allowed on en.Wikiversity.org, unlike en.Wikipedia.org. Each wiki is independent, however, each project could have its own policy. There can also sometimes be a problem with web sites that might have been globally blacklisted. Each wiki has its own whitelist to bypass a global blacklist if that's needed. (In a university class, students or speakers may present original research, so might a professor or other teacher. This is analogous.) Having said this, one should be careful how original research is presented, it should not be implied that this is generally accepted knowledge if it is not. --Abd 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the question relates to whether or not original research on a wikiversity can be used as a source in a wikipedia - in short, probably not. If / when a wikiversity is able to contribute a paper to a peer reviewed journal I think we'd be in better shape to be cited. I'm unaware of any english wikiversity research being used as a reference in the english wikipedia, but others may know more? best, Privatemusings 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might be right, PM. Generally, no wiki can be used as a reliable source. It's possible that with some review process where page versions are approved by an expert review panel, with reliable process and validation, that could change. We have nothing like that. --Abd 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone once told me Scholarpedia was a wiki that could be reliable source, given that it has a peer-reviewed structure and changes have to be approved by an expert in the field. But this is not really pertinent to the conversation. Thenub314 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Dispersive wiki is also quite highly regarded. I trust it over myself in most cases. Thenub314 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but you have not precisely understood. Speech more about relates to whether or not original research on a wikiversity can be used as a source in a wikipedia, but the reference, not as is given used as a source. Reference used as additional information, similar w:Template:Wikiversity, but only for researches. SergeyJ 03:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Has found! Template w:Template:Wikiversity-r inclusions have been removed. SergeyJ 03:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if Wikipedia articles cite Wikiversity material as sources? -- dark lama  12:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I ask: whether can remove a template w:Template:Wikiversity-r from articles of Wikipedii SergeyJ 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a question for us, it is a question for the project where the template is used. Generally, I'd say, such references are allowed on en.Wikipedia, or should be, they are not references for the article itself, and they are not reliable sources. They are external links, really, and subject to external links policy. Because all these resources are open to editing by all WMF editors, generally, and while there can be concerns about such pages as biased or fringe or whatever, there is nothing intrinsically biased about them, which, of course, gives me some ideas! --Abd 01:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perspective: staying focused on the project, not on conflict.
Abd and others have said recently they feel that heavy debates among admins are making it hard to work on Wikiversity. I would make a different set of observations.

First, to the perceived problem: there is unbalance among people who like to be vocal on Wikiversity: namespace pages -- too large a percentage enjoy the thrill of argument. Perhaps this is not surprising for Wikiversity of all projects, which has tried to recruit people with academic interests and background... academia is known for being like that, and for having streaks of viciousness within its monuments to thought. We have excellent contributors like Jtneill who spend most of their time editing the main namespace, and we also have many editors who spend almost all of their time editing, and worrying about, controversial debates.

Second, to a potential solution: rather than trying to resolve the controversies, recognize that most of them do not matter to the future of the project. Attracting more great contributors with interesting projects they want to start, such as Charles Jeffrey Danoff and MrABlair23, is important. Giving them feedback, and thinking about the many different things Wikiversity can become, is extremely important. (MrABlair's course page overview for his Human Legacy Course is quite lovely and detailed -- yet after almost a month I was the first person to leave him a talk page message other than an automated welcome, offering some ideas & questions about his course. That is a pity.  10 minutes from each of the combatants who are using Wikiversity as a battleground would suffice to leave personal feedback for everyone who has created a new Wikiversity page in the past month. And that makes the difference between a collection of strangers and a community working together to solve large and amazing problems in education.

Attracting more custodians who are good at facilitation, and finding ways and guidelines to dissuade people who are spending all of their time in conflict -- or simply to get them to make a mainspace edit for every other edit! -- would be good. Regaining a focus on how to meaningfully provide materials, courses and research into all areas of knowledge would be truly great. –SJ + > 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside, speaking of making mainspace v. flamewar edits -- I believe JWS said he offered Jtneill to limit his edits to the main namespace for some period of time, as part of resolving issues raised. Has that been discussed further?  Now that JWS has laid out a careful list of concerns and complaints, that might be a good idea to let things calm down.  –SJ + > 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you SJ. My own approach here on the Colloquium, was not the good one. To summarize mine, i couldn't be able to find people for my reading groups, so i quit editing for long whiles, hoping someone would come some day, with whom i could do something worthwhile. And now i am unemployed at home trying to keep myself busy and don't know where to go actually. Because i find the whole internet one giant peace of crap. Well, i do some chatroulette actually, which is gross.


 * I don't understand as well what's all the fuss with the personal conflicts here on Wikiversity. I don't have the stomach to get involved, because it is just a bad way of spending my time, like on all those political forums where people are constantly throwing mud to each other. Though, i had some great discussions once in a while. Why is Wikiversity so small, and do more than 6 million people World of Warcraft? And why are editors on Wikipedia often such loners and do you have so many edit wars there when people do have some contact with each other? I tried to run some WikiProjects, but they didn't work out.


 * I could send ABlair a message, because i got an MA in history. Problem is that we will be with two, and probably won't get any others involved. It is hard to get to some working relationship with only two. The best would be to come to a group of people, who use their creativity to create a meaningful way of spending their time on Wikiversity and are also capable of getting more people involved. That was what i was thinking a lot about a few years ago.Daanschr 09:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From 2006 to 2008 Wikiversity was a healthy collaborative learning community, then the community was disrupted. The way to return the Wikiversity community to good health would be to count the constructive main namespace edits of all Custodians. If the majority of a Custodian's Wikiversity edits are not directly adding learning resources to main namespace pages then the Custodian's tools should be taken away. --JWSchmidt 09:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a pretty good idea. --SB_Johnny talk 10:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bad idea. It does nothing to stimulate creativity. If common users continuously harass Wikiversity and aren't blocked, than the custodians have to force themselves to edit positively in order to be able to handle the harassment. Better is to stimulate real communities of people who collaborate with each other and custodians should do their job by reducing vandalism and trolling. A good custodian can devote all his or her time to it, why not? Take an example of StuRat, how he handles the Help Desk, that is a service to the community. Just like a good custodian can also be serving Wikiversity as a whole.


 * Maybe it would be good to give my opinion for a change about the present troubles, though i don't want to discuss about it. The problem with User:Moulton is that he insults people and deliberately makes them angry. He also uses abnormal ways of communicating, which he calls drama, similar to User:KYPark above. And this abnormal way of communicating further infuriates those who have issues with him. That is why i am in favour of blocking him. I don't understand why JWSchmidt defends Moulton, because it is clear that Moulton is here to fight others and doesn't want to resolve disputes, but create them. I also don't uinderstand why custodians are discussing this for years. I have worked at a kindergarten and a school of 16 to 20 years old. My main job was to maintain order. Well, if someone didn't do as i say, than this person was punished pretty quickly, otherwise a school can't function properly. I don't spend all my time arguing about it. Wikiversity is lacking in authority, that way those who wants to disrupt the community can continue doing so. In forums people are quickly discarded. And if two fight, two are guilty. If two persons on a kindergarten were fighting with each other, they would often blame each other and both get punishment.Daanschr 10:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "A good custodian can devote all his or her time to it, why not?" <-- Because not all Custodians have the trust of the Wikiversity community, for example, Wikiversity now has a sysop who did not come to Wikiversity to learn, who has never participated in a collaborative learning project with a colleague, who was never mentored as a Custodian and who enforces policies from other websites at Wikiversity, who failed to respond to questions from the community when his probationary custodianship was under review, who has repeatedly disrupted Wikiversity by violating policy, who has disrupted the Wikiversity community chat channel by misusing his channel operator tools and is not a "good Custodian" by any objective measure. "The problem with User:Moulton is that he insults people" <-- Daanschr, please list an example of such an insult. "it is clear that Moulton is here to fight others" <-- The reason he is here is given on his user page. "I don't understand why JWSchmidt defends Moulton" <-- I defend all Wikiversity community members who have done nothing wrong and who are harassed and treated unfairly. "Wikiversity is lacking in authority, that way those who wants to disrupt the community can continue doing so" <-- Well, Centaur of attention was blocked, but I even argued against blocking him. Blocking is for repeat vandals. All other problems can be solved by discussion. --JWSchmidt 11:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think i wasn't off guard with my earlier approach. The project JWSchmidt refers to has been deleted because it was intended to disrupt other Wikimedia projects, according to the person who warned Jimbo Wales about it. It probably is part of a large American movement called neoconservatism. Neoconservatives gained power in the 1980s (according to Wikipedia) by attacking others ferociously, the first group being attacked were the traditional Republicans, calling themselves paleoconservatives. Nowadays they use the Republican Party to attack the Democrats and to disrupt several institutions. An interesting prespective on it came from herman Wijffels, a Christian Democrat politician from the Netherlands, who brokered the Christian/Labour Party cabinet in 2007 in Holland. Before doing so he worked for the ethical department of the Worldbank, when suddenly Paul Wolfowitz started a typical neoconservative campaign afainst the unethical behaviour of certain persons within the Worldbank, similar to what is happening here on Wikiversity in my view. During a meeting a Russian told Wijffels that: 'it is war and you got to win it.' And Wijffels did. Wolfowitz was defeated. Wijffels has an interesting perspective on the world problems. He favours sustainability and says that our present lack of policy will lead to a famine killing billions of people worldwide. But, he is also a christian, a moderate one perhaps, just like Barack Obama. Many christian democrats regard him as too left-wing. That is why he was asked to broker the cabinet with the Labour Party. So to come back to my earlier remarks. We should ensure that Wikiversity is about learning communities and not about destroying Wikipedia.
 * So, my proposition is to increase the power of custodians and to throw all the neocons out. Just a simple block for eternity and ensuring they can't get back. Otherwise i would be in favour of closing down the english language Wikiversity and perhaps also beta, if these Wikiversity projects have nothing positive to add to the Wikimedia Foundation.Daanschr 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The project JWSchmidt refers to has been deleted because it was intended to disrupt other Wikimedia projects" <-- If you mean this project, it was a project designed to find an ethical way to improve Wikimedia projects. It was a harmless learning project. "So, my proposition is to increase the power of custodians and to throw all the neocons out." <-- Custodians clean up spills (obvious vandalism). All other use of the block and delete tools is done by community consensus after discussion by the Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 11:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I got a hard time trying to find out what's going on. I haven't followed the whole discussion in the past years, because i don't like it. I can remember reading about an Italian guy who threatened Wikipedia with a law-suit of 50 billion dollars, if his biography page was abused again. And here Wikiversity there was a page to discuss his case, and than Jimbo intervened. But, i can't find it anymore. I guess i should have better refrained myself from responding in the past weeks, since i don't know what is going on.Daanschr 13:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand at you the problems. But can look at my small :) Colloquium SergeyJ 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sergey, original research is something i also find very interesting. At the heart of Wikiversity is the academic freedom to conduct original research, while Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. Using relevant sources is a way to ensure a minimum of quality of knowledge on Wikipedia. The reason why i came on Wikiversity was because i know from the social sciences that there is a lot of conflict between those who write sources, so this means that editors on Wikipedia have to discuss sources and thereby create their own original research. But, this has nothing to do with the topic of SJ.Daanschr 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User pages.
I have been running across pages like About Kyle which should probably be in the User space of some other user. Before I go run off and editing other peoples user page I wanted to make sure the community in general agreed with me. In the above case there is a unique editor whom I would like to assume the page is about. Thenub314 21:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This was just a pagename error by the user. The material was originally on his user page. On seeing this, seeing who the editor was, you could have moved the page to his user space, any registered editor can do that. Diego Grez, a custodian, did move the page, suppressing the redirect, and then edited the user page itself to fix the link that the user had in place. That's probably the cleanest solution, and, again, any one, including you, could have done it. It's not considered offensive if it is done to be helpful, and particularly if it's easy to fix if you make a mistake. Because no redirect was left behind, the link above is a redlink. I'm leaving it that way, the page was moved to User:Nakamoto/About Kyle.


 * It's good that you were careful about making changes to user pages, but ... this was in mainspace, totally fair game, totally inappropriate there, and, once moved, fixing the link on the user's page itself is merely helpful, nobody will get upset about that. Moving directly is much less disruptive than, say, putting a deletion template on the page! Before moving any page, you should check "What links here" in the toolbox and be prepared to fix links and double redirects. If a page name is one that someone might be looking for, you can allow the move process to create a redirect, but in this case, suppressing the redirect and just fixing the important link was right on. Frosting on the cake: notify the user on his Talk page, he won't have the new location on his watchlist, and he should. I'll leave that for you, no time right now. Thanks for your work on Wikiversity. --Abd 01:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Adapting to too long talks without archiving
You are invited to talk there than here! -- KYPark [T] 01:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * KYPark, when you wrote, "You are invited to talk there than here!", I had no idea what you were trying to say...."there"? --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed the blue headline on top, leading you to Colloquium/2010/Talking without archiving over there? Around here, you are supposed to have gone the wrong way. -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you meant by "there" now that you explained it. --JWSchmidt 16:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My message or anyone's is a coherent whole or context you should attend to. According to S. I. Hayakawa (1949) Language in Action and Thought, "...the ignoring of contexts in any act of interpretation is at best a stupid practice. At its worst, it can be a vicious practice." Also recall the "advice" in the footnotes reading: "Don't behave as if you knew everything." When the context is not fully understood, you have to ask and clarify such doubts as "there" and "from dot to dot," first of all, before you respond practically. Conversation, collaboration, and the like bilateral communication and interaction are that hard! -- KYPark [T] 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved to Colloquium/2010/Thekohser, as suggested by User:Abd. Come August, I'd like the following to be moved as well similarly, if no one objects within this month. -- KYPark [T] 03:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * I would support moving only if the conversations seem to be concluded at that time. If people have made comments as recently as the last week, it would be nice if the conversations stayed here, since I would not have the new locations on my watchlist. Thenub314 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub's idea is good. –SJ + > 08:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The contents of this page are automatically archived when discussion threads become stale. Archiving active Colloquium threads is disruptive since it removes active discussions from participant's watch lists. KYPark, please stop manually archiving discussion threads from this page. --JWSchmidt 09:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Every reasoning necessarily assumes assumptions, whether explicit or implicit. As such, my reasoning above, regarding the move of the above six agendas to sub-subpages, assumed that my new proposal or Colloquium/2010/Talking without archiving were fully approved.
 * Thenub314 and SJ ahead of you are supposed to have read and agree on that proposal over there and further agree on moving those agendas on time, while you are not, hence out of context, JWSchmidt, I am afraid!
 * To be precise, JWSchmidt, please answer if you would respond here as above, granted that you agree on the Colloquium/2010/Talking without archiving over there.
 * "granted that you agree on the Wikiversity:Colloquium/2010/Talking without archiving over there" <-- I don't agree "over there". --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not asking you whether or not you agreed in real life, but whether or not you would answer the same way as before granted that you agreed, or should you have agreed (in a subjunctive mood). That is, I was questioning if the prerequisite had been agreed. -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By saying "Archiving active Colloquium threads is disruptive since it removes active discussions from participant's watch lists," JWSchmidt, you are inevitably suggesting that my moves, past and future, are disruptive, destructive, hence vandallic, ain't you? Even though you are not meaning it, some readers would be so suggested that you do harm to me. Am I fully understood? If not, go on reading the following.
 * "JWSchmidt, you are inevitably suggesting that my moves, past and future, are disruptive, destructive, hence vandallic, ain't you?" <-- Well-intended edits, even if misguided, are not vandalism. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Even though you are not meaning it, some readers would be so suggested that you do harm to me. Am I fully understood?" <-- I provided you with information and made a polite request. I don't see how that could harm you. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be hard to see how you or anyone could do harm. So I explained quite a while starting from Words become seeds. But still you don't see the way, I fear. The word "disrupt" sounds very infamous and disgusting in this community in particular. The more often I am associated with it, the more disruptive I would feel in mind and look to others. This association is reinforced by the conditioned reflex, the effect of which I thought you are familiar with. Learning is at its best whereas brainwashing at its worst. This is the very function or magic words work as seeds sown in the mind, as famously affirmed by  Aldous Huxley (1940) and  S. I. Hayakawa (1949). This is how the self-fulfilling prophecy works. This is why the Korean old saying "Words become seeds" exactly makes sense of it. Therefore, I was proposing to you and the community in effect the lesser use of such self-fulfilling disruptive words as disruptive in this learning community, considering the young learners in particular. Indeed we should do without such emotive stuff as far as possible in this community of education and collaboration. This peace-making consideration made me tell you so long. I'm so sorry not to have  been well understood. -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Words become seeds. This is my brandnew translation of a Korean old saying "말이 씨가 된다" (mar-i ssi-ga doen-da). Namely, a self-fulfilling prophecy! (An advice added. -- KYPark [T] 02:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
 * H. G. Wells coined the word "atomic bomb" most likely in good faith, which became a reality of human destiny in three decades. Leo Szilard who is supposed to be most responsible for that realization acknowledged that he was seeded or inspired by Wells (1914) The World Set Free.
 * Unfortunately, Wells prophecized a fatally destructive atomic bomb of terror and horror, whereas a vitally constructive World Brain of tenor and honor. (In this regard, a reference was added. He later extended it to the World Mind! -- KYPark [T] 03:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)) He is also blamed for coining the new world order (politics), regardless of however good faith and will, while famed for coining the open conspiracy. He may be duly blamed because of the self-fulfilling prophecy in itself such that "words become seeds." (Added: To do him justice, he should be famed for another self-fulfilling prophecy, that is, the WikiMedia as a striking World Brain fulfilled, you know. Fighting for justice, you are invited to do him justice, too! -- KYPark [T] 06:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC) )
 * Disruptive or destructive words are self-fulfilling in nature, I fear. So is futurology in general in culture. For this and other reasons, I hate such words being used so frequently here to make the young feel like this community, if not the world, getting more and more disruptive, irrespective of the reality. (If you remain still perplexed, see Aldous Huxley I edited. -- KYPark [T] 06:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)) I remember you regretted custodian uses of such words, if my memory is correct. (In this regard, two references  were added. -- KYPark [T] 03:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Sometimes, I am myself pleased to behave naughty and use such indecent words, regardless of the harmful effects on others at large. They do harm to whoever sees or hears, regardless of the due responsibility. Therefore I have to refrain from such nasty naughty speeches and acts, in view of the world peace after all. So do I in this learning community, young and old alike, in particular. (In this regard, a reference was added to warn against Machiavellianism, be it science war or whatever conflict. This is also justified by moral reciprocity, which I'm hopelessly suspicious of because of the deeply-engraved self-righteousness of Abrahamic sects in the West! -- KYPark [T] 04:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Mainly from the watch-list point of view, you seem to ask me to "stop manually archiving discussion threads from this page," which though may have too many threads running simultaneously to be watched focally or meaningfully. (In this regard, two references were added. -- KYPark [T] 03:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
 * For me, it is "shameful and shameless" (In this regard, a reference was added. -- KYPark [T] 03:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)) to do injustice and harm without regretting or repenting. In this perspective, Christian apologetics for example is far from being repentant and apologetic enough. No real apology no real peace! Isn't this what and why you keep crying to custodians in effect?
 * -- KYPark [T] 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Isn't this what and why you keep crying to custodians in effect?" <-- I have little expectation of seeing people enter into a state of regretting or repenting or becoming apologetic. I just want to return Wikiversity to the state that existed from 2006 to 2008 before it was disrupted by a few Wikipedians. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not only that you want to return WV to those old good years. But you harshly blame some admins for having spoiled WV. This may be necessary but not sufficient, I fear. Without their regretting their spoiling, if any seriously, you could hardly go back then, I bet. -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A few days ago, User:Abd blamed you for asking too many questions while making custodians defend the indefensible. Your warning me of being disruptive sounds disruptive to me, if not others. So I warn you not to dare to say such unspeakables to me hereafter. I am well aware that this warning of mine is also disruptive but that it is a measure for measure or moral reciprocity I hold highest as the singly sufficient moral principle, though it may lead to a vicious circle when neither is repentant enough, say, of custodians and you!
 * -- KYPark [T] 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Your warning me of being disruptive sounds disruptive to me" <-- If we can't speak openly and honestly to each other then there is no way that this can be a collaborative learning community. I explained why manual archiving of active discussions is harmful. You are free to ignore my views on the matter. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are required to talk anything seriously after you've fully understood the whole context, esp., the main point, that is, my new proposal "Talking without archiving." Otherwise, simply you are not welcomed at all! Suppose that you thoroughly read and understood, but entirely denied or ignored that proposal anyway, and responded as you did at first. I would never ever forgive your way. Certainly you are free to deny or ignore anything, but not free to do anything in context as if out of context, entirely denying or ignoring the prerequisite or main point in context. Plainly, you should have first agreed or disagreed on the proposal regarding Talking without archiving, and then go on talking anything else. Granted that my proposal is approved, archiving would matter no more, whether auto or manual, while your talking on archiving sounding groundless! -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speak openly and honestly for such a community, but do not speak of the unspeakable and disruptive words emotionally, on the other hand. More often than not, I honestly feel like saying highly emotionally, harshly, be it the short cut to the community and communication breakdown. But I should avoid such honesty as far as I can. Should I say harshly, you would do so, as per moral reciprocity. The global wiki community of anonymity and invisibility should be very careful how to behave emotionally and morally open and honest. The wide spectrum of cultural relativism calls for all the more discrete standard. -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JWSchmidt, you are welcomed to respond from dot to dot. -- KYPark [T] 03:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * KYPark, when you wrote, "You are invited to talk there than here!", I had no idea what you were trying to say...."there"? "granted that you agree on the Wikiversity:Colloquium/2010/Talking without archiving over there" <-- I don't agree "over there". "JWSchmidt, you are inevitably suggesting that my moves, past and future, are disruptive, destructive, hence vandallic, ain't you?" <-- Well-intended edits, even if misguided, are not vandalism. "Even though you are not meaning it, some readers would be so suggested that you do harm to me. Am I fully understood?" <-- I provided you with information and made a polite request. I don't see how that could harm you. "Isn't this what and why you keep crying to custodians in effect?" <-- I have little expectation of seeing people enter into a state of regretting or repenting or becoming apologetic. I just want to return Wikiversity to the state that existed from 2006 to 2008 before it was disrupted by a few Wikipedians. "Your warning me of being disruptive sounds disruptive to me" <-- If we can't speak openly and honestly to each other then there is no way that this can be a collaborative learning community. I explained why manual archiving of active discussions is harmful. You are free to ignore my views on the matter. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I hate your messy narratives as well as this Colloquium's messy agendas. While the essence of my proposal is to split such agendas into separate pages, I therefore divided your messy answer into pieces and posted each to the relevant passage. To save such nuisance, I invited you to answer me "from dot to dot" but you simply ignored it to my inconvenience, perhaps to your convenience. This is not a way of collaboration, I fear. Is collaboration whatever you prefer? If you say yes, I may adapt to you as such. -- KYPark [T] 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I invited you to answer me "from dot to dot" but you simply ignored it to my inconvenience <-- KYPark, I had no idea what you meant by "answer me from dot to dot". "Is collaboration whatever you prefer?" <-- I do the best I can with the primitive tools that we have for discussion. --JWSchmidt 17:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking, I deliberately overloaded you with a messy mass of information in a way similar to yours for which User:Abd blamed you. I sincerely apologize to you that I have used you in my mischievous, rather misguiding communication experiment, though I am aiming for finding better ways of discussion and collaboration! -- KYPark [T] 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit that my expression "from dot to dot" is not expressive enough but too ambiguous for you or anyone else. Blame me for my bad English. But this ambiguity was also what you should better have clarified in the beginning. I split my response to your comment into a number of messages or passages that begin with a big blue dot you see on the lefthand side, which is an asterisk you and I type on the leftmost margin in editing. So, by "from dot to dot" used to be conciser, I meant "from passage to passage" to be preciser. -- KYPark [T] 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Footnotes

Community Review
Notice: The behavior of all Wikiversity Custodians is now the subject of a community review. The major problem is that a few sysops continue to abuse their power and positions of trust. Other Custodians fail to follow Wikiversity policy so as to prevent further disruption of Wikiversity by those who abuse their power. Now is the time for all honest Wikiversity participants to come to the aid of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Question. How many Custodians plan to disrupt the Community Review process in this way? --JWSchmidt 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon ... You are smart enough to know the difference between disruption and exasperation. WAS 4.250 11:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated in the community review, the review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. I believe it is disruptive for a Custodian to make a public statement suggesting that this important community collaboration is a waste of time. Sometimes collaboration is one percent inspiration and 99% exasperation. --JWSchmidt 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What a parody! -- KYPark [T] 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Update
The community review now includes some specific proposals for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Community discussion of the proposals is needed. --JWSchmidt 12:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Second update
The community review now includes seven proposals for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Community discussion of the proposals is needed. --JWSchmidt 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin problem
I've been having a bit of a problem with Ottava Rima. I've been keeping a journal of the incidents. I'll let them speak for themselves:

Entry #1
Wednesday 21st July 2010

Whilst talking with Moulton on IRC today he told me that he had been banned by Ottava Rima. Moulton suggested that I [Rock drum] leave Ottava a message asking him some questions. The message was as follows:

"With all due respect, do you have any evidence that Moulton is "attacking others"? Is there also anywhere that I can see him presenting his defense, and cross-examining the witnesses? Can you exhibit the record of Due Process, or exhume the cover up?"

Ottava then removed this comment with the edit summary: removing obvious sock puppet. I am not a sock puppet of Moulton as many of you know and can testify to. I feel sad, angry, disappointed and just downright depressed. Emotion scale:


 * Bullied: 7/10
 * Intimidated: 1/10
 * Upset: 9/10
 * Angry/annoyed: 8/10

Entry #2
Thursday 22nd July 2010

After Ottava removed the comment on his talk page yesterday I placed a new message which is as follows:

"You removed my previous comment saying that I was a sockpuppet. I am not a sockpuppet and invite you to use Checkuser on us."

He [Ottava] then removed my comment with the edit summary: reverting inappropriae [inappropriate] addition by user who is revealing language and wording that verifies they are not new nor innocent. The only reason I can use language like this is because I am a moderately experienced user on Wikipedia (I’ve been there since October). I know about things like CheckUser etc. I’m not as upset as I was after the last incident; I’m just a bit angry.

Emotion scale:


 * Bullied: 2/10
 * Intimidated: 2/10
 * Upset: 3/10
 * Angry/annoyed: 7/10

Rock drum (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Rock drum, I'm sorry you have had such an interaction with one of our Custodians. This kind of disruptive behavior by Custodians is under community review. With any luck things will improve in the future. Please don't join the ranks of those who have been driven away from Wikiversity by capricious acts of Wikimedia functionaries. --JWSchmidt 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rock drum is an obvious sock puppet who uses the same language. It is no coincidence that a user without any experience found his way here and posted in he same manner. The same capitalization and the rest is also a major denoting factor. But the best was his diving straight into an obscure and complex problem while speaking about it from a position of experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've logged a request for CheckUser. When that comes through, it should prove that I am not a Sockpuppet of Moulton. Thanks, Rock drum (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See the checkuser results. --JWSchmidt 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a useless checkuser request, because the checkuser was not provided with adequate information. User:Moulton is stale because that account has not been used for donkey's ages. A proper report would have been on Caprice or the various IPs that have been declared as Moulton by signatures. General policy for checkusers is to decline requests from users attempting to clear themselves. Checkuser cannot do that, there are so many ways to avoid identification by checkuser. The checkuser seems inexperienced.
 * However, Ottava filed this, later. Had there been an active sock of Moulton, this would probably have uncovered it, again, unless Moulton were using checkuser evasion techniques. For more than one reason, we can proceed on the assumption that Rock drum is an independent user, and making charges of sock puppetry without strong evidence is generally considered disruptive. --Abd 15:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Moulton won't be stale because I understand he has recently logged in, he just wasn't able to edit. I do think this whole thing was a bit pointless though and Ottava really needs to refrain from accusing users of being socks unless there is solid evidence. Adambro 15:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The checkuser reported Moulton as stale. If I'm correct, global lock actually prevents log-in. It might present the appearance of log-in to the user, but the user cannot, for example, use their watchlist. It may be that the log-in simply is not recorded at all. Are failed log-ins (say the password is bad) recorded? But, really, I don't know for sure how it works. Yes about Ottava. Thanks. --Abd 16:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies, I hadn't spotted that it was reported as stale. I'm pretty sure that Moulton had said he had managed to log in recently but not edit. I'd have thought that would have left a mark somewhere but perhaps not, I'm not fully aware of how it works. Adambro 16:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) A locked global account cannot log in. Adrignola 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what does it look like to the user, and is the log-in attempt recorded so that checkuser could see it and identify the IP? The linked page does not address these issues. --Abd 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know a couple people you could ask what it looks like... CheckUser shows edits and account creations but not logins. Adrignola 18:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Moulton has shown me a screenshot of him logged in.  It's not a good sign that Meta's own documentation on global locks is outdated (much more so the lack of a good policy for its usage). Adrignola 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So now, from the revised documentation, a locked user can still log in and access their watchlist. Let me guess that the IP is recorded and that checkuser could inspect it. Maybe not. But it's possible. Things been getting a bit heavy on Wikibooks, eh? My condolences. I really did not expect that. --Abd 03:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava Rima, please stop making accusations and apologize to Rock drum. --JWSchmidt 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We all know that proxies are used in such situations. Sock puppetry catching is 90% behavior. The behavior that was there was 100% not that of a new user and 100% including capitalization and language common for it being a sock puppet. Furthermore, JWS, it has already been shown that you've made a sock puppet and that there are plenty of others. If you want, we can enforce a clean house on such as sock puppetry has a history of being known to be disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava, Rock_Drum is not a sock puppet of mine. He came to Wikiversity for reasons unrelated to me. We had never met or communicated. JWS invited him to chat in his preferred IRC channel, #wikiversity-en-projects, which is where I met him. He's a bright young learner, and I am playing my usual role as a science educator of helping bright young people learn. You will discover that Rock Drum has some talents which I lack. When he manifests those talents (of which I am candidly incapable), you will realize that he is a real person who had never heard of me until we met yestrday in #wikiversity-en-projects. Moulton 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Em, I'm sure Rock drum is not Moulton. I have interacted with him/her before and I don't think it is a sock of Moult. Diego Grez 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never stated he was Moulton's sock. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I met Rock drum in the #wikiversity-en chat channel on July 18. He asked for help with his Drum set learning project. User:Darklama participated in the discussion. User:Diego Grez came in to the channel and exchanged greetings with Rock drum. After Adambro started wildly kicking and banning, we went to #wikiversity-en-projects and Rock drum met User:Moulton. I have collaborated with Rock drum at the Wikiversity the Movie learning project. Rock drum clearly has musical expertise that I lack. It is absurd to suggest that he is me. --JWSchmidt 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC) --JWSchmidt 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said he was you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, what did you mean when you said that I have created a sock puppet? I take that as a serious accusation. Ottava Rima, please name that sock puppet. --JWSchmidt 17:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not complain when Beetlebaum was exposed as belonging to you? Sigh. Talking to you makes me think either you lack short term memory or you are just messing with us. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Beetlebaum is one of my accounts. If you are suggesting that I have ever misused one of my accounts then you need to provide evidence. The correct term is "alternative account", not "sock puppet" (see sock puppet) and I can make as many alternative accounts as I like. "Talking to you makes me think either you lack short term memory or you are just messing with us." <-- When I can make a fellow collaborating learner think, then I feel it has been a good day. "you lack short term memory" <-- Do you have any evidence that might refute that seemingly weak hypothesis? "you are just messing with us" <-- Funny, I've been wondering if you were messing with User:Rock drum and Adambro...does that make us even? "Did you not complain when Beetlebaum was exposed as belonging to you?" <-- I did not. I did complained when Adambro showed that he should not be trusted to responsibly make use of information obtained by checkuser. --JWSchmidt 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you seem to repeatedly fail to acknowledge regarding the checkuser request is that I wasn't specifically entrusted with any confidential checkuser data. The information that resulted from the checkuser request was available to everyone. All I did was to mention the findings on Wikiversity. I'm not convinced that really fits with your suggestion that I "should not be trusted to responsibly make use of information obtained by checkuser". Adambro 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "All I did was to mention the findings on Wikiversity." <-- That is an understatement. What you seem to repeatedly fail to acknowledge is that everyone can see what you did. Adambro, why did you decided to reveal my IP address? Why did you start a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? --JWSchmidt 21:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have now gone onto criticising my apparent revealing of your IP address rather than use of checkuser data. That is a separate issue. Your IP address did not come from the checkuser request, the only findings that I have been provided in response to my checkuser request are exactly what anyone can see on Meta. I explained in my comment how I determined that was an IP address used by you. That was by making an assessment of the contributions it had made and your response to those. Anyone could do that and it was facilitated by the contributions you had made. If you really were so concerned about your IP address being public then you could and should take more care about ensuring you are logged in and, secondly, not responding in such a way to edits you make by that IP so as to confirm it was you, e.g. changing the IPs signature to your own. I'm not convinced that you are actually as concerned about hiding your IP as you would seem to be judging from your reaction to what you suggest is my revealing of it in light of comments you have made on IRC. Since I am sure you keep logs of IRC, you'll be able to find what you've said but my recollection is that you suggested that you weren't actually very bothered about hiding your IP address. In that context this seems criticism for the sake of it. However, even if you were genuinely concerned about keeping your IP address private, as I've explained, you could have taken a lot more care yourself to ensure that. Adambro 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "You seem to have now gone onto criticising my apparent revealing of your IP address rather than use of checkuser data." <-- Not at all. I don't care about revealing my IP address. I care about the reason why you acted on checkuser data and revealed the IP address of a harmless user account. Adambro, why did you decided to reveal my IP address? Why did you start a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? Is there an echo in here? "criticism for the sake of it" <-- My criticism is because Adambro seems to have learned nothing from this fiasco and will possibly perform this kind of misuse of checkuser data in the future. Adambro, why won't you answer my questions? --JWSchmidt 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when you withdraw your baseless accusation that I've misused checkuser data I might be more enthusiastic about trying to respond to your questions. Adambro 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Until you provide a sensible reason for you having revealed my IP address, I'm forced to conclude that while making use of checkuser data, you needlessly (H1, good faith), or maliciously (H2), went out of your way to invade the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account. So, did you have a good reason for starting a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? --JWSchmidt 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't butt in, but... "went out of your way to invade the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account" <-- seems to violate (H1). Why not (H1', another good faith possibility) "he made a mistake trying to be to detailed in his post.  Didn't realize it would be upsetting, he has been informed and it can now be dropped."  Maybe? Maybe not?  That is what good faith would mean to me. Thenub314 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * made a mistake....trying to be to detailed.....Didn't realize.....has been informed...now be dropped <-- Thenub314, let me tell you what I think Adambro should have done: 1) nothing. However, assuming good faith for subconscious recognition of the fact that the Beetlebaum account was mine, having run the check, Adambro should have seen the error of his ways and 2) never mention his misguided checkuser request to anyone. However, assuming good faith for Adambro believing, without evidence, that Moulton had been banned (this was Adambro's excuse for requesting the checkuser action), I can accept that Adambro might have 3) come to my user talk page and asked me to mark the User:Beetlebaum account as mine. I would have done so and that would have been the end of the matter. However, rather than do #1 or #2 or #3, Adambro instead 4) created a "Request custodian action" item for the harmless Beetlebaum account. Why did Adambro do that? He wrote, "Since I am aware of some concerns about me taking action relating to JWSchmidt, I would ask that other custodians review this situation and take any action as appropriate." <-- This suggests that Adambro wanted to take Custodian action, but held back, expecting another Custodian to act. Act in what way? I draw a blank, so I have been asking him to explain his action. He refuses to explain. Such a lack of transparency derails my ability to assume good faith. "made a mistake" <-- check. "trying to be to detailed" <-- Why? What purpose was served by Adambro associating a particular IP address with a particular user account? "has been informed" <-- I have no evidence that Adambro understands what he did wrong. "now be dropped" <-- I believe Adambro never should have been made a Custodian and that he has done vast damage to the Wikiversity community since becoming a Custodian, as is being documented at the community review. His record as Custodian1, 2, 3 and #wikiversity-en channel operator and his misguided behavior after obtaining the checkuser results, as discussed here, indicates that he cannot be trusted. Custodians must be trusted members of the Wikiversity community. I think Adambro should explain his actions, but he often fails to answer my questions. It is up to the Wikiversity community to decide how to respond to Adambro's inexplicable and misguided actions. --JWSchmidt 01:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that your ability to assume good faith has been derailed. This exactly makes my point above that you had failed to actually assume it.  I will participate in the community review as time allows. Thenub314 19:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro could restore a bit of faith if he started explaining his capricious and damaging actions. --JWSchmidt 07:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Third update
The community review now includes nine proposals for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Community discussion of the proposals is needed. --JWSchmidt 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Too much postmodernism and christianity on Wikiversity
The problems on Wikiversity regarding the fights among users has to do with an ongoing attack by postmodernists and christians on Wikiversity as an institution. My proposal is to strengthen scientific knowledge within Wikiversity. Another proposal is to ban for eternity those users who continuously attack other users and use a postmodern kind of language that makes civil discussions impossible. Also those who support these users should be banned. The support for science should be of prime consideration instead of simply focusing on whether someone has a specific background as a professor at a university. Personally i am also in favour of art and culture, but i think it would be wise to advance science first and foremost.Daanschr 11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just going to assume that this obvious bias is you kidding, and if you are this is actually pretty funny to me as a Methodist-Buddhist, and someone who likes to go camping, which is post-modern activity.


 * As I asked in my "semi-outing" proposal in the privacy discussion, "how many extra lives do we get?"--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 13:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)