Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Policy development

This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission.

Note: This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Note: This review is a work in progress. Note: Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. Note: Related review topics have been moved to separate pages:
 * Threats to the Wikiversity project‎
 * Moulton‎
 * Outside interventions‎
 * Many links were broken when these subpages (above) were created. If you click on a link and it does not take you to the correct page section, the link is no longer to the correct page.

Policy development
How can Wikiversity policies and procedures be improved? Can we address the problems that are reviewed on this page and find ways to help advance the Wikiversity project's mission? How can existing official polices be improved? Which proposed polices should be made "official". Why has development of needed policies and procedures been so slow and difficult?

Disruption of policy development

 * "Consensus is not established just by counting votes
 * "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process"

Is it true that consensus requires a vote?
 * "I think proving a link to the discussion or vote could help improve or reaffirm things for anyone confused over what appears to be inconsistencies in the establishment of policies, guidelines and processes on Wikiversity"
 * When Wikiversity started there was a need for some policies. The nature of Custodianship was widely discussed by the Wikiversity community in multiple forums.
 * "Couldn't find where this policy was discussed"
 * When Darklama could find no discussion, there were over 2,000 words of discussion at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship. When Darklama was "confused" in March 2008 over 70 edits had been made to the Custodianship page over the course of about 19 months.

Question for community discussion: Is policy development disrupted by false claims about how consensus is established?

Discussion about disruption of policy development
Ironically Consensus didn't become a guideline until September 2009, and the talk page is full of objections that don't appear to have been addressed in some way on first look. Also someone voiced concerned at the unilateral decision to make it a guideline, though two people agreed that it should be a guideline. I think consensus doesn't require a vote, but some kind of discussion/vote hybrid is often the way people show consensus. Is consensus about making a decision? Is decisions in "multiple forums" appropriate given other discussions on this page that suggest that making decisions off-wiki is not appropriate? How many people must discuss a policy before consensus can be said to exist? Is 3 people agreeing enough to say that Consensus has consensus to be a guideline? -- dark lama  11:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "some kind of discussion/vote hybrid is often the way people show consensus" <-- Votes not accompanied by reasons are not a basis for consensus. Voting is bad practice when it causes people to avoid editing and discussion. Policy can always be modified. If a policy is needed it should put in place, refinement can come later. At Wikiversity, delay in policy development allowed a small group of sysops to start claiming the right to do anything they want to do, regardless of policy. --JWSchmidt 15:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem: different views about how to establish consensus have slowed policy development.Remedy: Make the Guidelines for consensus an official policy. See the proposal for an official consensus policy. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) .)

Problem: How do proposals become policy? Are unilateral decisions to make a proposal a policy without discussion and consensus suggesting a proposal become a policy acceptable? Is citing a page and accusations that people are violating a policy a problem, when the person doing that is the same person responsible for unilaterally deciding to turn a proposal into a policy without discussion and consensus suggesting that a proposal become a policy? -- dark lama  13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "How do proposals become policy?" <-- Someone usually places (see Template:Policy) on the page. "unilateral decisions to make a proposal a policy without discussion and consensus" <-- Darklama, please provide an example of this. "citing a page and accusations that people are violating a policy" <-- Darklama, please provide an example of this. --JWSchmidt 14:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Calling for unjustified blocks and bans is a serious violation of the Civility policy.

Note: Many blocks imposed at Wikiversity that were not imposed to prevent repeated vandalism have been made in violation of Wikiversity policy. At Wikiversity, Custodians "block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community consensus". The block tool is for preventing vandalism. At Wikiversity, "blocking occurs in response to obvious and repeated vandalism". Some of the unjustified, policy-violating blocks are discussed below, in this page section.

See also: rollback policy, proposal for a rollback policy fix See also: The block tool, proposal for an official policy on blocking.

Examples:
 * Adambro, Ottava Rima and Darklama called for an unjustified block of JWSchmidt
 * Diego Grez blocked Son of Beetlebaum
 * Adambro blocks Beetlebaum
 * Ottava Rima blocks Moulton
 * Adambro blocks Caprice
 * Abd calls for a topic ban to be imposed on JWSchmidt
 * Adambro blocks JWSchmidt
 * Abd calls for a block of JWSchmidt
 * Darklama blocked JWSchmidt

Adambro, Ottava Rima and Darklama called for an unjustified block of JWSchmidt


 * User:Adambro called for an unjustified block to be imposed on User:JWSchmidt. Ottava Rima also called for this bad block to be imposed. Darklama also called for this bad block to be imposed. Adambro provided no evidence to support his claim that User:JWSchmidt violated the civility policy. This unjustified call for a block was a serious violation of Wikiversity policy which warns against calling for unjustified blocks. (see extended comments on this call for a bad block) --JWSchmidt 14:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez blocked Son of Beetlebaum

On 25 July 2010 Diego Grez blocked Son of Beetlebaum with no warning. The block log says, ‎ "Don't know if this is ok, JW. You should wait until the situation is cleared up, please." There was no response to the unblock request or questions about the block. This block of Son of Beetlebaum was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks. --JWSchmidt 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I forgot to add the proper "warning" on the user's talk page, however I told you on IRC what I thought, very briefly 'cos I had to shut down my PC. It is absolutely nothing against you, but "my" manner to stop things. If you want unblocked Beetlebaum, I will unblock it, but do not create more accounts. That just confuses the things more and "speak worse of you". Sincerely, Diego Grez 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Diego Grez, please unblock that harmless account. What do you mean by "stop things"? Stop me from exploring my interest in music? What do you mean by "just confuses the things"? If you are confused then ignore that harmless account. Why does that harmless account "speak worse of you"? I can make as many accounts as I want. --JWSchmidt 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not inspired enough to response these questions. I have unblocked the original Beetlebaum account. I strongly suggest you to use only that one and not create other accounts if they are not needed, 'cos that is a "problematic action" in my opinion. I reiterate, I have nothing against you, but please don't make things more complicated. Thank you. Diego Grez 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 User:Adambro blocked User:Beetlebaum

On 25 July 2010 User:Adambro blocked User:Beetlebaum with no warning. The block log says, "Abusing multiple accounts: exacerbating problems by writing songs etc mocking other users". The blocking sysop had some kind of vendetta against this harmless user account, Adambro having violated the privacy of this account by misusing checkuser data. Adambro has harassed poor Beetlebaum and not explained why any Custodian would take an interest in this harmless user account. Adambro falsely charged "Abusing multiple accounts" but Adambro gave no warning and has no evidence of any abuse. In the log entry for this block Adambro falsely charged "exacerbating problems by writing songs etc mocking other users", but there has been only been the creation of a harmless learning project about The Declaration of Independence and a love poem. I believe Adambro is trying to disrupt my musical learning goals without justification. After Adambro imposed this bad block without warning, Adambro incorrectly did not allow another Custodian to review the block nor did Adambro make any attempt to respond to the specifics of the unblock request. If there had been even a single problematical edit by Beetlebaum then it could have been fixed by page editing. This block of Beetlebaum was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks. --JWSchmidt 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 User:Ottava Rima blocks User:Moulton


 * "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.
 * What custodians can do is described in policy. This is a collaborative learning community where decisions are made by consensus, not by capricious Custodians. --JWSchmidt 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the block was, "User was banned by the community and this was reaffirmed regardless of lock, Jimbo, or the rest - block stays until Moulton gives up his attacks on others"
 * As discussed at Is Moulton Banned?, User:Ottava Rima did not provide evidence to support his claim that Moulton "was banned by the community". Also, User:Ottava Rima has failed to provide evidence of "attacks on others". With no evidence to support the reason given for the block, this block of User:Moulton was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks. --JWSchmidt 20:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 User:Adambro blocks User:Caprice



When User:Adambro imposed this block on User:Caprice (alternate account of Moulton) User:Moulton was unblocked. User:Adambro is 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. Account locks are for, "abuse such as spamming, vandalizing, or creating malicious account names". Moulton never violated any Wikiversity policy. This block of User:Moulton was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks. --JWSchmidt 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Abd calls for a topic ban to be imposed on JWSchmidt


 * Abd called for an unjustified topic ban to be imposed on User:JWSchmidt. This call for a topic ban to be imposed on User:JWSchmidt was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks. --JWSchmidt 13:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 User:Adambro blocks JWSchmidt

On 11 July 2010 User:Adambro blocked User:JWSchmidt with no warning, and provided no explanation for the block at User talk:JWSchmidt. At the Wikiversity:Request custodian action page, User:Adambro accused "JWSchmidt has a long history of failing to comply with two key policies on Wikiversity; WV:AGF and CIVIL." This is not true. The only "evidence presented was two links (1 2) to a talk page. The two discussion comments were:

Talk page discussion comment 1:
 * "it shouldn't make a difference whether claims are being made by someone that is anonymous or open about their real-life identity" <-- It does matter. The reason it matters was in the text that you improperly reverted. "why we should be prepared to tolerate unsubstantiated claims" <-- Many Wikiversity participants have asked this since since the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008. The main problem is a gang of abusive sysops who make unsubstantiated claims about honest Wikiversity participants. When the honest Wikiversity participants object and challenge the unsubstantiated claims, the abusive sysops ignore the objections or impose blocks and censor community discussions so as to silence the objections. Please return the improperly reverted text. The Wikiversity mission would be supported by policy that helps to prevent anonymous editors from making unsubstantiated claims about living persons. If you want a rule that allows Wikiversity participants to hide their identities then honest Wikiversity participants need common sense protections against the unsubstantiated claims of the anonymous editors. --JWSchmidt 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page discussion comment 2:
 * IRC chat is not "private correspondence". Wikiversity needs guidelines for the #wikiversity-en chat channel (see Wikiversity:Chat). The #wikiversity-en chat channel is a public meeting place and an extension of the Wikiversity project. The Wikiversity community decides on rules for this project's main IRC meeting place. In the past, a few sysops have misused their channel operator powers to disrupt community discussions in #wikiversity-en. The Wikiversity community needs to protect itself from such abuses. I favor the idea of using a channel bot to automatically publish to Wikiversity all #wikiversity-en channel content. Abusive sysops are free to continue using their private channels to conduct their secret off-wiki scheming, but #wikiversity-en should no longer be used for such nefarious purposes. I removed the false claim that IRC chat is "private correspondence". User:Darklama reverted my edit and returned the incorrect claim while making another false claim in his edit summary: "contradicts what the channel says on IRC". I returned the correct statement (IRC Chat logs for the #wikiversity-en chat channel are not private correspondence.) and reminded User:Darklama to discuss disagreements on this talk page. Rather than discuss, User:Darklama again reverted me and inserted the false claim (that IRC chat is private correspondence). --JWSchmidt 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: There was no incivility or assumptions of bad faith in the two edits shown above. The bad block with "expiry time of infinite" was soon undone (13:45, 12 July 2010 Ottava Rima unblocked JWSchmidt ‎No consensus for block, CoI with blocking admin, out of process indef). At the time of the block, User:Darklama and User:Adambro were both preventing JWSchmidt from introducing needed language into Privacy Policy. Rather than edit collaboratively to develop needed policy, User:Adambro imposed a bad block that was based on trumped-up charges. This bad block by User:Adambro demonstrated a good example of what was in the first comment by JWSchmidt, above: "When the honest Wikiversity participants object and challenge the unsubstantiated claims, the abusive sysops ignore the objections or impose blocks". This community review documents the second comment by JWSchmidt, "In the past, a few sysops have misused their channel operator powers to disrupt community discussions in #wikiversity-en." This block of User:JWSchmidt was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks.

 Abd calls for a block of JWSchmidt


 * Abd accused JWSchmidt of incivility.
 * Evidence provided by Abd. Abd claimed that this edit archiving a user talk page was uncivil.
 * The words "silly attacks and nonsense" are from User:Adambro. Adambro has at times used the rollback tool on edits that are not obvious vandalism. On one occasion when this was done (twice) he wrote "don't add nonsense" and "making silly attacks on Jimbo" on the user talk page of JWSchmidt.

Statement by JWSchmidt:
 * I study the actions of sysops who do things like call me "troll" and suggest that I fuck off and leave the project. My studies are facilitated by archiving their talk page comments, and I use their own memorable language as convenient page names. Is a sysop allowed to call my good faith edits "silly nonsense" while I can't archive their comments on pages that use the same words?


 * I believe that a block was not justified by my system of archiving talk page comments. At any time, had another editor been upset by one of my archive page names, the page could have been immediately renamed by the offended Wikiversity community member. I believe it was irresponsible and uncivil for Abd to ignored such a simple remedy (perform a page rename) and instead he jumped to making an unjustified call for a block. Remedies that fall short of blocking are listed at the policy page.


 * JWSchmidt's Conclusion. I feel it is serious indictment of the Wikiversity Custodial staff that not a single Custodian, particularly Abd's mentor, spoke up to make the simple point that there was no valid justification or need for a block. In discussion of the proposed block only Moulton correctly pointed out that there was no justification to use the block tool. I feel that Adambro should not have called my good faith edits silly nonsense and Abd seriously violated Wikiversity policy by calling for an unjustified block of my editing. I truly feel harassed when subjected to such witch hunts by the Wikiversity Custodial staff. I feel that something must be done to restrain Custodians from their misuse of vandalism-fighting tools like the block button. --JWSchmidt 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 User:Darklama blocked JWSchmidt

On 6 July 2010 Darklama blocked JWSchmidt. The block log says, "disruption by converting proposal into a policy without consensus". Darklama has a personal view of consensus that does not agree with the Wikiversity consensus guideline. Policy development has been disrupted and stalled for the past two years. I made a harmless edit that would have made official a needed policy that has long been discussed and used by the community. Had there been a reason to object to the policy, Darklama could have clicked "edit" and stated the objections. Instead, he imposed an unjustified block. I made a good faith edit on a needed policy page and Darklama needlessly imposed a block. This block of User:JWSchmidt was unjustified and a serious violation of the Civility policy which warns against unjustified blocks. --JWSchmidt 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Remedy: Wikiversity needs a to make the proposed blocking policy official.

Rollback
From September 2006 to October 2009 the Rollback page said, "Rollback is a vandalism reverting tool available to Wikiversity custodians." On 12 October 2009 this edit was made, changing the text to: "Rollback is a vandalism reverting tool available to Wikiversity custodians for quickly undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive such as vandalism." However, the rollback policy still says "When a custodian reverts an edit that is not obvious vandalism the rollback button shouldn't be used."

Needed policy improvement: I think the 12 October 2009 edit is a source of conflict and dispute. I ask User:Adambro to please take the words "blatantly unproductive" out and agree that "When a custodian reverts an edit that is not obvious vandalism the rollback button shouldn't be used." --JWSchmidt 00:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Needed policy improvement: Make Vandalism an official policy. I ask User:Adambro to please behave as if Vandalism is an official policy. In particular: please follow the practice described at Dealing with vandalism and Assume Good Faith with respect to all contributions to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion threads:
 * Is rollback just for reverting obvious vandalism?
 * Rollback is for efficient reversal of a set of edits. Vandalism is the most obvious justification, and other uses are similar or analogous. --Abd 13:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is rollback also for "effective vandalism"?
 * The link does not point to a coherent description of the situation. --Abd 13:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are these rollback Policy violations?: Is this a violation of the Rollback policy? The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism. --JWSchmidt 09:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits by a blocked editor are a kind of vandalism, a special kind. They may be reverted on sight by anyone, using rollback or otherwise, and the only practical difference with rollback is that there is no provision for an edit summary. Where the editor is widely known to be blocked, the edit summary is largely superfluous. However, constructive edits by a blocked editor may be reverted back in by any editor willing to take personal responsibility for them as being useful. The use of rollback does not imply that the edit is literal vandalism. Reverting vandalism back in would be sanctionable, and the editor could be blocked as a vandal. But reverting positive contributions back in is ordinary editorial discretion. --Abd 13:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Case #1: 
 * Yes. Because it was an edit by a blocked editor. That is "like vandalism." If the edits of blocked editors require review to see if they are positive or not, there is no function to blocking. Editors are blocked because a decision has been made that there is more disruptive weight to their contributions than positive weight. "Like vandalism" is correct; the individual edit may not be, in itself, vandalism. --Abd 13:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism.

Was Adambro's edit vandalism?
 * No. It was block enforcement, and if an editor thinks the edit a positive contribution, the editor can and should revert it back in. The rollback is not an assertion that the edit, in itself, is "vandalism," it is an assertion that it is "like vandalism" in that it may be reverted on sight. I have seen no example of an editor blocked for reverting back in a positive contribution by a blocked editor, not on Wikiversity, nor even on Wikipedia, though on Wikipedia, abusive adminstrators have threatened to block for that, citing "meat puppetry." However, community consensus there rejects this position, and quite properly so. --Abd 13:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that this addresses the remainder of the questions here. The real complaint of JWS is the block itself. Would he be complaining if the block were clearly based on community consensus? Would he still believe that the community cannot ipso facto decide to automatically revert the IP edits of a blocked editor? If so, then the community has no right to block for anything other than blatant vandalism, and what if a vandal, known for making voluminous vandalism, makes a positive contribution, but perhaps one which requires careful examination to determine if it is positive or negative? There is a simple solution, and JWS is not interested. He'd rather complain about trivial stuff, whether an edit is reverted ordinarily or using rollback. Is that a huge difference? --Abd 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Case #2: Is this a violation of the rollback policy? (Or this)? The rolled back edits are not obvious vandalism.

Case #3: Is this a violation of the rollback policy? (Or this)? The rolled back edits is not obvious vandalism.

Case #4: Is this a violation of the rollback policy? (Or this?) The rolled back edits are not obvious vandalism.

Case #5: Colloquium comments restored - Edit summary: "Why do you suppose Thomas Jefferson said he would rather live in a country with free speech (press) than a lack thereof that fancied itself a democracy?"

Case #6:<BR> <br style="clear:both;"/> The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism

Case #7:<BR> The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism as was the case for these:2, 3

Case #8:<BR> The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism

Case #9:<BR> The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism
 * learning resource repaired

Case #10<BR> The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism
 * The censored Wikiversity community discussion was repaired

Case #11<BR> The rolled back edit is not obvious vandalism
 * The content that was censored from a Wikiversity community discussion was saved.

Case #12 <BR> <br style="clear:both;"/>

More data:
 * < 2 minutes
 * < 2 minutes
 * < 1 minute
 * others?

Other official policies

 * Assume Good Faith
 * Be bold
 * Bots
 * Community Review
 * Custodianship
 * Exemption Doctrine Policy
 * Privacy Policy
 * Reliable sources
 * Research guidelines
 * Verifiability
 * What is Wikiversity

Proposed policies
Which proposed policies should become "official" polices?

Privacy policy
Statement of the problem by JWSchmidt:<BR> In 2008 User:Moulton was followed to Wikiversity and the #wikiversity-en chat channel by some Wikipedians. One of the Wikipedians created a sockpuppet account at Wikiversity and declared that his goal was to get User:Moulton banned from participating at Wikiversity. User:Moulton's practice of refering to other wiki participants by name was used as justification to ban Moulton from Wikiversity and the #wikiversity-en chat channel, even though Wikiversity has no policy against using a person's name.

In 2008, Wikiversity could have made official a policy for personal information that would have limited the use of real names. That policy could be applied to both the wiki and #wikiversity-en chat channel discussions. Now after two years of further experience, I think that the Wikiversity community should discuss additional concerns and some additional protections that could be included in the Wikiversity Privacy policy. I have two proposals:

1) There is an existing problem due to disruption of the #wikiversity-en chat channel by channel operators who have misused the kick and ban tools and disrupted Wikiversity community discussions. The Wikiversity community IRC chat channel is a public meeting place for Wikiversity community members. In order to protect community discussions from disruption by misuse of the kick and ban tools by channel operators, the channel needs some system for public logging of chat or discussing and documenting how the kick and ban tools are used by channel operators. (see Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy)

2) Anonymous editors have disrupted Wikiversity by publishing false claims about Wikiversity participants. The Wikiversity community needs protections against anonymous editors who avoid legal protections against libel and online harassment. (see Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy)

Now, in 2010, two of the Wikiversity sysops who have misused their channel operator power in the #wikiversity-en chat channel have disrupted community discussion of these proposed components of the Privacy policy. I was subjected to an absurdly bad block because I tried to allow the Wikiversity community to discuss these aspects of the proposed policy (1 and 2, above). There has been tag-team removal of the proposal elements (addressing items 1 and 2, above) at Privacy policy by these two editors, with the undesirable effect of interfering with the ability of the Wikiversity community to discuss my proposals for how to protect Wikiversity community members from misuse of the kick and ban IRC channel tools and anonymous editors who publish false claims about participants at Wikiversity (1, 2, 3, 4). This disruption of Wikiversity policy development is doing damage to Wikiversity and needs to be discussed by the Wikiversity community. Wikipedia policy has been cited as an excuse for reverting my proposals.

The community needs to decide on needed protections against misuse of IRC channel kick and ban tools and anonymous editors who publish false claims about living people; these matters should not be decided by just two sysops. I feel that there is a serious problem here with conflict of interest. Sysops who misuse the kick and ban tools are deciding Wikiversity policy and preventing the development of protections for Wikiversity community members who want to use the #wikiversity-en chat channel for collaborative learning. I think Wikiversity needs rules for the #wikiversity-en chat channel.

I think there needs to be more openness about what goes on in the #wikiversity-en chat channel. Channel operators should not be misusing the kick and ban tools and intimidating channel participants. I call upon all Wikiversity participants who have misused the kick and ban tools in the #wikiversity-en channel to allow discussion of IRC chat logs from the #wikiversity-en channel. The Wikiversity community needs to know what has been going on in #wikiversity-en and protections need to be put in place to prevent future disruption of the Wikiversity community chat channel. --JWSchmidt 02:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See the Policy Proposal to make an official Wikiversity Privacy Policy.

Note: the above statement by JWSchmidt has been updated. The following discussion refers to an earlier draft version of the statement.
 * "I call upon all Wikiversity participants who have abused their #wikiversity-en channel operator powers to allow discussion of IRC chat logs that demonstrate their disruption". This is another good example of how the way in which JWSchmidt discusses his concerns on Wikiversity isn't particularly helpful. I, as I'm sure is the case with others, don't consider that I've ever abused my ops in #wikiversity-en. Now, whist it may be JWSchmidt's opinion that a particular action constituted abuse, if he wants to discuss concerns like that he would be better avoiding using such descriptions. Adambro 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, please suggest an alternative description. --JWSchmidt 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not Adambro, but I happen to agree, so I'll suggest some alternatives:
 * "I call upon all Wikiversity participants to allow discussion of IRC chat logs."
 * "I ask that all irc channel participants give permission to publish their irc comments on wiki."
 * "I request permission to publish irc comments from all irc channel participants."
 * "I request permission to publish all channel kicks and blocks from all channel operators."
 * What do all these examples have in common? They lack POV pushing qualifiers. -- dark lama  14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, I can't switch to any of those four alternatives. I wanted to limit my request to only those who have abused their channel operator power. How else can I say it? For the record, Darklama, have you or have you not ever banned me from #wikiversity-en without warning, discussion or reason provided? --JWSchmidt 14:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most likely limiting your requests down to nothing than, since people are unlikely to believe your request includes them. IRC does not store state information. A simple server disconnection can be all that it takes for information like a topic or a ban to be lost. Often the fact that bans are no longer in place when that happens goes unnoticed until the person returns. I only put bans back into place that were lost under those conditions. Comparing wiki with irc is like comparing apples and oranges. If the community decides that warnings and reasons must be given each time irc servers forget who is banned from a channel, than I will respect that in the future. However you were warned and given a reason when the initial ban, that I was only restoring after servers lost it, was put into place. -- dark lama  16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "limiting your requests down to nothing" <-- The request is for exactly two people, as I specified, but we could bring User:SB Johnny into the discussion as another example since he edited just yesterday. "you were warned and given a reason" <-- Darklama, please describe the warning that I was given and please explain the reason. "was only restoring" <-- I was banned from #wikiversity-en on 9/21/08 and the ban was for one week. On 1/27/09 you kicked me from #wikiversity-en and said that I was still banned. Darklama, what ban were you enforcing on 1/27/09? --JWSchmidt 17:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I need permission from both Moulton and you, before I can do that. However irc bans don't expire on their own. A person must remove a ban themselves. If an irc ban was intended for only a week that was not clearly indicated to the other channel operators. You are allowed in there now, and have been for some time, so clearly the issue was eventually resolved. -- dark lama  18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "the issue was eventually resolved" <-- The issue is abuse of channel operator power and it has not been resolved. "I need permission from both Moulton and you, before I can do that." <-- Permission for what? Darklama, will you unblock User:Moulton so that he can give permission? --JWSchmidt 19:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Permission to describe the situation that lead to the ban from #wikiversity-en. I could attempt an unblock, but that would not allow Moulton to participate in any discussion under that account because of a global lock, he can not even login to his user account. -- dark lama  19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Permission to describe the situation that lead to the ban" <-- I did not request that. Second Chance: Darklama, on 1/27/09 did you kick me from #wikiversity-en and tell me that I was banned, and did you do so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Darklama, if you were enforcing a ban imposed by someone else, who imposed that ban and what did the channel op who imposed it give as the reason for the ban and duration of the ban? --JWSchmidt 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else. The channel op did not say what the duration of the ban was. You haven't given me permission yet to make public the reason for the ban. -- dark lama  21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, does "Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else" mean that you kick me from #wikiversity-en and told me that I was banned, and you did so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Who imposed the ban that you were enforcing? When was it imposed? Please state the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it. If you do not know the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it, then why did you enforce it? If you did not know the duration of the ban, then why did you enforce it? --JWSchmidt 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

#wikiversity-en policy
In this page section:
 * Protection against misuse of channel operator tools (kick and ban)
 * Decisions made off-wiki
 * Custodian behavior in #wikversity-en
 * Misuse of channel operator tools (kick, ban)
 * (under construction - use of real world names)


 * There are examples here involving Adambro, Darklama, Ottava Rima, JWSchmidt and (under construction User:Moulton)

Protection against misuse of channel operator tools (kick and ban)

Statement of the problem by JWSchmidt:<BR> The Wikiversity community needs protection against misuse of the kick and ban tools in the #wikiversity-en IRC chat channel. Any kick or ban of Wikiversity community members in #wikiversity-en should at the least be preceded by a warning and should be accompanied by an explanation for the channel operator's action. When Wikiversity community members are kicked and banned from the #wikiversity-en chat channel without warning, discussion or reasons provided it disrupts the Wikiversity community. Since misuse of the kick and ban tools in #wikiversity-en is now under review I will use this page inform the Wikiversity community of all channel operator actions in #wikiversity-en. I also urge all Wikiversity community members to read this chat log and think about how Wikiversity Custodians should behave in the Wikiversity community chat channel. --JWSchmidt 11:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: Chat Channel Policy Proposal: create rules for the #wikiversity-en chat channel.

Question for Darklama: does "Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else" mean that you kicked me from #wikiversity-en and told me that I was banned, and you did so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Who imposed the ban that you were enforcing? When was it imposed? Please state the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it. If you do not know the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it, then why did you enforce it? If you did not know the duration of the ban, then why did you enforce it? --JWSchmidt 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Question. Adambro, why have you twice kicked me from the #wikiversity-en chat channel with no warning, discussion or reason provided? --JWSchmidt 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. Adambro, why have you kicked me from the #wikiversity-en chat channel three times with no warning, discussion or reason provided? --JWSchmidt 12:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Channel Log <BR> "Always give reasoning and appropriate warnings before applying sanctions"

This record of channel ops actions will allow the Wikiversity community to remain informed about how the kick and ban tools are used in #wikiversity-en:


 * Friday July 16, 2010 Action #1
 * 2:55:47 AM: Mode change "+o adambro" on #wikiversity-en by ChanServ
 * 2:56:02 AM: Monitor1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Monitor1)
 * 2:56:25 AM: Mode change "-o adambro" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * Note: This kick was performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Friday July 16, 2010 Action #2
 * 8:28:46 AM: Mode change "+o adambro" on #wikiversity-en by ChanServ
 * 8:28:52 AM: Monitor1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Monitor1)
 * Note: This kick was performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Friday July 16, 2010 Action #3
 * 8:34:34 AM: Mode change "+b *!Monitor@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * Note: This ban was performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Friday July 16, 2010 Action #4
 * 9:03:00 AM: JWSchmidt is now known as Monitor2
 * 9:05:00 AM: Monitor2 is now known as Moultonsock
 * 9:06:10 AM: Moultonsock is now known as MoultonLives
 * 9:08:58 AM: Mode change "+o adambro" on #wikiversity-en by ChanServ
 * 9:09:07 AM: You have been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (MoultonLives)
 * 9:10:33 AM: Mode change "+b MoultonLives!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 9:10:37 AM: You have been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (MoultonLives)
 * Note: This ban was performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Friday July 16, 2010 Action #5
 * 10:49:09 AM: AyinDaled has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (AyinDaled)
 * 10:56:20 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * Note: This ban of AyinDaled was performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Sunday Jul 18, 2010 Action #6
 * 8:50:04 AM: Mode change "-b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 8:50:16 AM: Mode change "-b *!Monitor@*" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 8:50:48 AM: Mode change "-b *!*@[IP]*" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 8:51:08 AM: Mode change "-b *Moulton*!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by adambro

Question: is all of Verizon in New England still blocked?


 * Sunday Jul 18, 2010 Action #7
 * 10:03:37 AM: *** Mode change "-bbbb *!*@*.ansci.usu.edu *!*@*.media.mit.edu *!*bkort@* Moulton!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by darkcode
 * 10:03:58 AM: *** Mode change "-bb *!*@*.ipv6.he.net *!*@*.bos.east.verizon.net" on #wikiversity-en by darkcode


 * Sunday Jul 18, 2010 Action #8
 * 1:55:06 PM: ZumGali has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (ZumGali)
 * 1:55:09 PM: Ayin-Daled has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Ayin-Daled)
 * 1:57:30 PM: Bromide has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Bromide)
 * Note: These kicks of ZumGali, Ayin-Daled and Bromide were performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Monday Jul 19, 2010 Action #9
 * 1:52:52 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 1:53:10 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 1:53:17 AM: AyinDaled has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (AyinDaled)
 * 1:53:20 AM: ZumGali has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (ZumGali)
 * 1:53:28 AM: Bromide has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Bromide)
 * Note: These bans and the kicks of ZumGali, AyinDaled and Bromide were performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Monday Jul 19, 2010 Action #10
 * 4:44:25 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 4:44:27 AM: Bromide has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Bromide)
 * 4:44:34 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 4:44:36 AM: ZumGali has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (ZumGali)
 * Note: These bans and the kicks of ZumGali and Bromide were performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Monday Jul 19, 2010 Action #11
 * 5:20:33 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 5:20:35 AM: ZumGali has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (ZumGali)
 * Note: This ban and the kick of ZumGali were performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Tuesday Jul 20, 2010 Action #12
 * 5:11:47 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro_
 * 5:11:48 AM: Greensboro has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro_ (Greensboro)
 * 5:13:39 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]*" on #wikiversity-en by adambro_
 * 5:14:08 AM: Mode change "-bbb *!*@[IP] *!*@[IP] *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro_
 * Note: channel operator actions performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.


 * Wednesday Jul 21, 2010 Action #13
 * 2:38:02 PM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 2:38:04 PM: Greensboro has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Greensboro)
 * Note: This ban and the kick of Greensboro were performed by User:Adambro with no warning.


 * Wednesday Jul 21, 2010 Action #14
 * 3:45:14 PM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@wikia/JWSchmidt" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 3:45:16 PM: *** You have been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (JWSchmidt)
 * Note: This ban and the kick of JWSchmidt by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided. Related discussion


 * Tuesday Jul 27, 2010 Action #15
 * 4:08:19 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 4:08:20 AM: Edinburgh has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Edinburgh)
 * 4:08:26 AM: Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
 * 4:08:27 AM: You have been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (Beetlebaum)
 * Note: channel operator actions performed by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided.

Comments

I've just reviewed this section (to this point) about #en-wikiversity, and related proposed policy and logs. I'm not much a chat user myself - prefer on-wiki - but am concerned to see that with the arising issues there seems to be a lack of adequate corresponding Wikiversity policy. Perhaps the proposed policy that JWS is suggesting could go into a dedicated page for further development and discussion by various parties involved and other observers. In general, I like where it is heading but would imagine that more experienced chat users would want to contribute to its development - and I would want to know more about WMF chat policy and freenode policy. Then I see no reason why the community shouldn't be asked to consider and make official such policy to help establish community expectations and the role and usage of the chat channel. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Decisions made off-wiki <BR> The Wikiversity community needs protection against Custodians who make decisions off-wiki, including in #wikiversity-en. From 2008 to 2010 the #wikiversity-en chat channel and other off-wiki venues have been used as a forum for making decisions about blocking Wikiversity community members and performing emergency desysop procedures. All such discussions should be on-wiki where full community participation is possible. See: emergency desysop and consensus for blocking.

Is the chat shown here appropriate behavior for the Wikiversity chat channel? Ottava Rima, where was the on-wiki discussion of the idea that blocks should be of 24 hour duration? In my view, the block tool is a vandalism-fighting tool -full stop. I believe Wikiversity needs a policy to control misuse of the #wikiversity-en chat channel. --JWSchmidt 10:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The 24 hour block only order was to keep Adambro from indeffing you without discussion. Indefs are only acceptable after discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that blocking Wikiversity community members should follow community discussion (see Cabal). This needs to be written into Wikiversity policy so that rogue sysops stop abusing their Custodial power. --JWSchmidt 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to remember that an indef block doesn't always mean forever, it often means until we've figured out a more appropriate length or other ways of dealing with an issue. In that particular case, I felt the block would facilitate discussion of the concerns I had though I appreciate a number of others felt that was the wrong order. As the situation stands, some of the same concerns that prompted me to block continue, for example my impression that JWSchmidt prefers to make statements about how people have abused their rights or whatever rather than raise any concerns he may have in a civil manner that might allow them to be addressed. I hope that JWSchmidt may change his approach. However, I absolutely retain the right to use my custodian rights in accordance with what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community. That means that in exceptional circumstances I might block JWSchmidt for a period longer than 24 hours without prior discussion. If Ottava thinks that indef blocks should only be used after discussion then he is free to add it to the proposed Blocking policy. I'm rather unconvinced by the appropriateness of making threats, orders, promises, or whatever to other custodians is the way to go about this. It certainly wouldn't seem to promote an atmosphere free of bullying that Ottava wants us to have. Adambro 13:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "a civil manner that might allow them to be addressed" <-- There is nothing uncivil about discussing abuse of power by sysops. Wikiversity community members must be free to discuss how sysops behave at any time. Sysops who don't want their actions to be examined and discussed should resign. "I might block JWSchmidt for a period longer than 24 hours without prior discussion" <-- Such disruption of Wikiversity is not acceptable. Adambro, stop importing the abhorrent practices of other websites into this scholarly learning community. At Wikiversity, Custodians can only block obvious vandals and open proxies without warning. Your recent bad block is going to be a major part of this community review. All Custodial actions must conform to community consensus. If I dispute your reason for imposing a block then a community discussion must be initiated before the block. Custodians can only use their tools without discussion for situations like dealing with obvious vandalism. --JWSchmidt 13:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Many people forget that criticizing an edit is easily conflated with insulting the person who made it — and so they are unnecessarily harsh on the giving end and unnecessarily sensitive on the receiving end. Textual communication on the Internet does not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, so a small, facetious comment can be easily misinterpreted. What starts with one uncivil remark becomes an exchange of those same, during which people are no longer interested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy". This is not what Wikiversity is about (see What is Wikiversity?)."


 * JWSchmidt I believe you have become focused on "triumphing" over the "enemy". Discussing actions is civil. Discussing people's character is not civil. Discussing people's character directions attention and discussion away from actions that people have issues with. "Abuse of power of sysops" is an example of you focusing on "triumphing" over the "enemy", and directing attention and discussion away from problematic actions. Please redirect and focus your attention to the specific problematic actions you wish to discuss. Please keep in mind that "triumphing" over the "enemy" is not what Wikiversity is about. -- dark lama  14:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you have become focused on "triumphing" over the "enemy" <-- Darklama, please provide evidence to support your bad faith assumptions about my motivations. Please provide links to statements by me where I have characterized a fellow Wikiversity participant as the "enemy". Please provide links to statements by me where I have declared my goal to be "triumph over enemies". Discussing people's character <-- Darklama please link to to statements by me where I have discussed people's character. "Abuse of power of sysops" <-- If someone repeatedly uses their Custodial tools in a way that is against policy or that disrupts the Wikiversity project, and if they game the system by pretending that they have not done so, then they have abused their position of trust and misused their special powers. This community review will examine policy violations by Custodians and disruption of the #wikiversity-en chat channel by channel operatives who have misused the kick and ban tools. "focus your attention to the specific problematic actions you wish to discuss" <-- I hope this community review satisfies you. --JWSchmidt 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the positive side "who have misused the kick and bans tools" is less of a characterization, but who is "who" and how kick and ban tools were misused in your opinion wasn't state in your response, which means you aren't focusing on the problematic actions because I (or anyone else reading this response) don't know what you mean by misuse of the kick and ban tools.
 * On the negative side I believe this is a case in point where you are not listening. I'm not questioning your motivation. I am questioning your ability to have a civil discussion. I have already quoted an example of what you have wrote that is discussing people's character. Are you implying that you must use the word "enemy" to describe someone before, I or anyone can question your ability to have a civil discussion and stay focused? Are you implying that quoting you is not enough, and I must include a link before you are willing to acknowledge it? Even your response to my comments distract from focusing on problematic actions. In your response you focused on characterizations, like "abuse of power of sysop", "game the system", "by pretending", "abused their position of trust", "misused their special powers", and "disrupts the Wikiversity projects". Must I provide links for those examples as well, before you will acknowledge them too? -- dark lama  16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * who is "who" and how kick and ban tools were misused in your opinion wasn't state in your response, which means you aren't focusing on the problematic actions because I (or anyone else reading this response) don't know what you mean by misuse of the kick and ban tools <-- This community review is still under construction. It takes time to document the sorry history of the past two years of abuses of power by sysops. I am in the process of documenting the misuse of the kick and ban tools in this page section. We have extensively discussed how you kicked me from the #wikiversity-en chat channel without discussion or warning. Use of the kick and ban tools without providing warnings and reasons for their use is an abuse of channel operator power and it disrupts the Wikiversity community. Darklama, you misused your channel ops power. "I have already quoted an example of what you have wrote that is discussing people's character." <-- Discussing abuses of power by sysops is not uncivil. I believe that the quote you are referring to is: "Abuse of power of sysops". If the topic of discussion is abuse of sysop power then why can't I say things like, "Abuse of power of sysops"? "I or anyone can question your ability to have a civil discussion and stay focused" <-- You can question anything, but as far as I can tell, what you object to is my discussion of abuse of Custodial power. Discussion of how sysops abuse their power is not uncivil. One characteristic of abusive sysops is that rather than engage in discussion of their abuses and correcting their behavior, they game the system by claiming that such discussions are not civil. "Are you implying that quoting you is not enough, and I must include a link before you are willing to acknowledge it?" <-- I simply did not know which quote you were talking about. Must I provide links for those examples as well, before you will acknowledge them too? <-- I acknowledge that I discuss topics like "abuse of power of sysop" and how abusive sysops "game the system" and how such behavior "disrupts the Wikiversity projects". It is important that Wikiversity community members discuss these matters. If you want to discuss specific examples then this community review is the place for you. I've just begun to document abuses of custodial power in this forum (for example, I will soon document your misuse of the block tool). If you are impatient then while you are waiting you could respond to my past requests and questions here and here. You are already aware of my learning blog. I welcome responses to my questions in that forum. Also, I urge you to restore this page and participate in the community discussion that I initiated there. I'd like to know why that community discussion was disrupted by a sysop. Could it be that sysops who abuse their power try to prevent community discussion of their abuses? --JWSchmidt 07:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Custodian behavior in #wikversity-en <BR>
 * I urge all Wikiversity community members to read this chat log and think about how Wikiversity Custodians should behave in the Wikiversity community chat channel. Also, Wikiversity community members should read the following chat logs from #wikversity-en and discuss if a couple of rogue sysops should be continued to disrupt the Wikiversity IRC chat channel. --JWSchmidt 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See also: Calling out and we've heard about enough<BR> How can Wikiversity attract more scholarly participants when they are treated like this:

July 18, 2008<BR> 10:42:13 AM:   Wikiversity community member: I wish to educate young people about fundamentals of civics and good governent and managerial ethics. <BR>10:42:56 AM:   sysop1: you might wish to avoid constantly making comparisons with parts of history that those young people aren't familiar with then <BR>10:46:08 AM:  sysop2: or using any language that is likely to be way over their head <BR>10:46:15 AM: Wikiversity community member: I am more than happy to help you and other young scholars become familiar with important moments of progress in the annals of human history. <BR>10:46:51 AM: Wikiversity community member: All you need to do is to ask for more background on things you don't understand. <BR>10:47:33 AM:   sysop1: it does get in the way of the point you are making though if people have to start trying to learn about whatever it is you're talking about <BR>10:48:12 AM:  sysop2: focusing on familiarizing human history distracts from you familiarizing them with fundamentals of civics, good governance, and managerial ethics <BR>10:49:00 AM:  sysop2: if with each step you have to take focus away to focus on another thing they aren't familiar with, the further you'll get from ever getting around to the point <BR>10:50:32 AM:  sysop2: it is even people a person that wants to learn the fundamentals of civics, good governance, and managerial ethics isn't interested in sitting through months of history lectures first <BR>10:52:49 AM:  sysop2: i'd probably annoy you anyways, I'd more than likely be the first raising my hand if that were a class to ask "what the hell does history got to do with civics, good governance, and managerial ethics, I didn't pay this outrages amount of money to be taught history" <BR>10:58:25 AM:  sysop2: http://theapple.monster.com/careers/articles/8155-5-reasons-why-teachers-fail <BR>11:02:20 AM:  sysop2: I suspect that the teaching practices haven't changed much if at all during the time the US first gained its independence <BR>11:05:41 AM:  sysop2: new technologies haven't changed teaching practices IMO <BR>11:07:12 AM:  sysop2: I'm sure I'd be called a "resistant learner" even though I think that is nonsense <BR>11:10:16 AM: Wikiversity community member: Are you familiar with a concept in the US Constituion and Bill of Rights called "Bille of Attainder"? <BR>11:10:50 AM:   sysop1: a little now <BR>11:12:28 AM: Wikiversity community member: OK. What do you suppose happens, historically, when there is an instance of a Monarchial Bill of Attainder (or, in modern times, a "Fatwah") that names some individual an "outlaw" without actually charging them with an actual crime on the books and proving the charges in a court of law, with Due Process? <BR>11:13:00 AM:  sysop2: disappointing: http://imet.csus.edu/imet1/peaty/ed251_project/resistance_home.htm <BR>11:14:41 AM:   sysop1: not making much progress it seems <BR>11:15:42 AM: Wikiversity community member: It's true that humans have not made much progress in The Advance of Civilization since Hammurabi of Mesopotamia first wrote down on stone tablets the very first written laws. <BR>11:15:51 AM:  sysop2: so far can only find stuff about teachers being resistant to the use of new technologies <BR>11:16:18 AM: Wikiversity community member: I am a pioneer in the adoption of new technologies in education. <BR>11:17:38 AM:  sysop2: well I'm not looking for that type of resistance, I mean it in similar terms to resistant learners <BR>11:18:31 AM:  sysop2: in the same way as I use the concept of "teaching disabled" like people use "learning disabled" <BR>11:19:43 AM:  sysop2: sad really that people are so keen to blame the learners and not come up with concepts resolving around blaming learners, and ignoring the study of teacher dysfunction <BR>11:19:50 AM:   sysop1: Wikiversity community member seems adept in obfuscation <BR>11:21:04 AM:   sysop1: and seems to do it deliberately to make it impossible to actually discuss anything <BR>11:23:45 AM:  sysop2: i've often thought that obfuscation was a character flaw common to all teachers <BR>11:28:42 AM: Wikiversity community member: Sysop2, he recently attended a conference on advanced educational technologies, and he told me about this video from IDEA on Demacratic Learning Communities: http://changetheschools.ning.com/video/discover-democratic-education <BR>11:30:11 AM: Wikiversity community member: Today, [name redacted] is attending a conference at MIT. I hope to get a chance to visit him at MIT later today, when his conference is over. <BR>11:30:43 AM: Wikiversity community member: I suggested we meet at the MIT Media Lab, where we can talk about Wikiversity and Education. <BR>11:31:40 AM: Wikiversity community member: Hopefully there will be some other folks there, and we can have a little conference. <BR>11:31:48 AM:  sysop2: better him than me, I suspect I'd find talking with you even more boring in personal

Wikiversity community members should read the following chat channel log and discuss if this is proper use of the Wikiversity IRC chat channel:
 *  Calling out <BR>

July 18, 2008<BR> 4:57:40 PM: *** Sysop3 has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>4:58:06 PM:    Sysop3: Wikiversity community member2 jus sent me this in email <BR>4:58:07 PM:    Sysop3: I'll give you until 4 AM tomorrow (EDT) to reply to this: <BR>4:58:07 PM:    Sysop3: [redacted link to off-wiki website] <BR>4:58:08 PM:    Sysop3: Otherwise, I'll assume we're in a state of total war. <BR>4:58:08 PM:    Sysop3: Might be fun for me, but would be pretty bad for you. <BR>4:58:08 PM:    Sysop3: What, did you think I wouldn't know how to retaliate? Perhaps you thought I'm too nice of a guy to do so? Sucks to be you right now... how are you going to get yourself out of this one, Sysop3? <BR>4:58:08 PM:    Sysop3: It's fucking stupid to go after the one guy who you know has an ace up his sleeve and who has nothing in the pot to lose. I'm not a wannabe/aspiring pundit or academic. You are. Are you sure you want total war? <BR>4:58:08 PM:    Sysop3: Just asking. I'll have fun if we play, and the [redacted name of off-wiki website] folks will laugh and laugh and laugh. You won't have fun though, and I'll feel a little bad about that. I'm weighing things though, and the fun might outweigh the pity. <BR>4:58:09 PM:    Sysop3: -Wikiversity community member2 <BR>4:58:13 PM:    Sysop3: It was through the Wikiversity function <BR>4:58:36 PM:    Sysop3: I forwarded his threats and proof of previous harassment to the Foundation, to ArbCom, and to other parties that are within jurisdiction of his actions <BR>4:58:55 PM:    Sysop3: I would ask that he be blocked and email disabled to prohibit him from sending such statements like that <BR>5:04:49 PM: Wikiversity community member3: I'm back <BR>5:04:58 PM: Wikiversity community member3: I was cooking <BR>5:07:39 PM:    Sysop3: Wikiversity community member3, did you see the above? <BR>5:07:57 PM: Wikiversity community member3: I'm reading the post at [redacted name of off-wiki website] <BR>5:07:59 PM:    Sysop3: Now you can see how nasty he really is and how he pulled the stunt with Jimbo against Wikiversity community member1 and basically lied to Jimbo to get him to interfere last time <BR>5:08:10 PM: Wikiversity community member3: what is going on? <BR>5:08:35 PM: Wikiversity community member3: "information to the FBI"? <BR>5:11:10 PM: Wikiversity community member3: I don't think I'll ever understand [redacted name of off-wiki website] <BR>5:11:46 PM:    Sysop3: Wikiversity community member2 has been harassingly calling me for a while <BR>5:12:02 PM:    Sysop3: He has also been playing games with people like you, Wikiversity community member1, [redacted name of off-wiki website], Jimbo, etc, for a long time <BR>5:12:06 PM:    Sysop3: I callled him out on his bs <BR>5:13:15 PM: Wikiversity community member3: he is an interesting character <BR>5:14:02 PM:    Sysop3: He has no sense of right or wrong, of legal or not, he is just a childish jerk who causes as much drama as possible a <BR>5:31:28 PM:            Sysop2 waits for Sysop3 to make some association between pedophilia and Wikiversity community member2 <BR>6:06:58 PM: Wikiversity community member2 has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>6:19:09 PM: Wikiversity community member2: Sysop3! <BR>6:19:21 PM: Wikiversity community member2: you ready/\? <BR>6:26:47 PM:    Sysop3: Wikiversity community member2, you aren't welcome here anymore

Wikiversity community members should read the following chat channel log and discuss if one sysop should be able to prevent Wikiversity community members from interacting in the Wikiversity IRC chat channel:
 *  we've heard about enough <BR>

WCM = Wikiversity community member <BR>July 19, 2010 <BR>6:29:48 AM:   WCM1: By the way, do you recall what happened to Javert at the end of his [redacted adjective] pursuit of Jean Valjean? <BR>6:29:55 AM:   Sysop1: I just don't want you wasting your time worrying about me WCM1. <BR>6:30:25 AM:   WCM1: Oh, it's not a waste of my time at all. I appreciate the opportunity to play Jean Valjean in our comic opera. <BR>6:30:47 AM:   WCM1: I rarely get such a golden opportunity to play that kind of character in a drama. <BR>6:31:23 AM:   WCM1: No one would let me be in a real theater production, even as an amateur, because I have no talent as a thespian. <BR>6:31:30 AM:   Sysop1: and you wonder why I don't want you on WV, you just keep demonstrating why <BR>6:32:12 AM:   WCM1: But you have enabled me to practice the thespian skills that I never developed in my professional, technical career doing Network Planning at AT&T Bell Labs. <BR>6:32:47 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1: and you wonder why I don't want you on WV, you just keep demonstrating why  <-- can you expand on that? <BR>6:32:56 AM: *** Mode change "+o Sysop1" on #wikiversity-en by ChanServ <BR>6:33:00 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP] " on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:33:02 AM: *** WCM1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (WCM1) <BR>6:33:04 AM: *** Mode change "+b WCM1!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:33:05 AM: *** WCM1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (WCM1-Mac) <BR>6:33:12 AM: *** Mode change "-o Sysop1" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:34:27 AM:   Sysop1: I think we've heard about enough <BR>6:34:38 AM:  WCM3: the royal "we"? <BR>6:34:46 AM:  WCM3: I don't agree <BR>6:34:47 AM:   Sysop1: to some extent, yes <BR>6:37:01 AM:   Sysop1: well if you want more of this theatrics then I'm sure you know where you can find him <BR>6:38:11 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, why are you disrupting my learning goals by misusing your channel operator tools? <BR>6:40:19 AM: *** Sysop1 is now known as Sysop1_ <BR>6:42:40 AM: *** Sysop1_ is now known as Sysop1 <BR>6:42:43 AM: *** Mode change "+o Sysop1" on #wikiversity-en by ChanServ <BR>6:43:08 AM: *** Mode change "-b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:43:25 AM:  Sysop2: shall we give SoD back the custodian tools too than, because some people want to learn how a community is destroyed from within? <BR>6:43:42 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@*.[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:44:04 AM: *** Mode change "-o Sysop1" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:45:18 AM:  Sysop2: what if person A wants to learn from person B, but by wanting to learn from person B, person C's learning goals are disrupted? what than? <BR>6:46:08 AM: *** ZumGali (~ZumGali@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>6:46:14 AM:  WCM3: Sysop2, you finally provided me with an answer to: "why would anyone give SoD a position of trus and responsibility?" I have been serching for the reason. <BR>6:46:27 AM:   Sysop1: you've lost me there Sysop2 <BR>6:47:16 AM:  Sysop2: I was being sarcastic, "WCM3" <BR>6:48:07 AM:  WCM3: (A B C)s <-- that is an interesting question <BR>6:49:04 AM:  WCM3: Sysop2, how can one Wikiversity participant disrupt the learning goals of another participant? <BR>6:49:08 AM:   ZumGali: WCM1's last remark, which he did not get in under the wire was:  "Your not wanting me is what makes it possible for me to do an educational project on Civil Disobedience." <BR>6:49:08 AM:   ZumGali: [redacted URL] <BR>6:49:08 AM:   ZumGali: There is the song parody about not being wanted. <BR>6:49:32 AM: *** Mode change "+o Sysop1" on #wikiversity-en by ChanServ <BR>6:49:36 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:49:38 AM: *** ZumGali has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (ZumGali) <BR>6:50:11 AM:   Sysop1: WCM1's learning goals centre around causing drama. <BR>6:50:57 AM:  WCM3: Q: How one Wikiversity participant disrupt the learning goals of another participant? A: Sysop1 can misuse his tools to prevent me from interacting with a scholar and fellow Wikiversity community member. <BR>6:51:07 AM: *** ZumGali1 (~ZumGali@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>6:51:13 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:51:14 AM: *** ZumGali1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (ZumGali1) <BR>6:51:49 AM:  WCM3: WCM1's goals are shown here: [redacted Wikiversity user page URL] <BR>6:52:50 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1: WCM1 uses dramatic characters, but misuse of sysop and channel ops tools causes drama <BR>6:52:53 AM: *** ZumGali1 (~ZumGali@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>6:52:58 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:53:00 AM: *** ZumGali1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (ZumGali1) <BR>6:55:33 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:55:39 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, why do you misuse your position of trust and responsibility  to prevent me from interacting with a scholar and fellow Wikiversity community member? <BR>6:56:05 AM: *** Mode change "-bb *!*@[IP] *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:56:48 AM: *** Mode change "-bbbb *!*@[IP]*!*@ [IP]*!*@ [IP]*!*@ [IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:57:28 AM: *** Mode change "-bbbb *!*@[IP]*!*@ [IP]*!*@ [IP]*!*@ [IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:58:06 AM: *** Mode change "-b WCM1-Mac!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:58:19 AM: *** Mode change "+b *WCM1*!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>6:59:05 AM: *** Sysop1 is now known as Sysop1_ <BR>6:59:17 AM:  WCM3: Custodianship Custodians are supposed to follow the same principles as every other user, including being civil, assuming good faith, and understanding what Wikiversity is. They are expected to act professionally. <BR>6:59:18 AM: wikiversil: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Custodianship <BR>7:00:47 AM:  WCM3: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Approved_Wikiversity_project_proposal#Mission <BR>7:00:48 AM:  WCM3: Wikiversity is a centre for the creation and use of free learning materials and activities. Its primary priorities and goals are to: <BR>7:00:58 AM:  WCM3: Create and host a range of free-content, multilingual learning materials/resources, for all age groups in all languages <BR>7:01:07 AM:  WCM3: Host scholarly/learning projects and communities that support these materials <BR>7:02:10 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, why are you disrupting the mission of Wikiversity by misusing your position of trust and responsibility? <BR>7:04:12 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, do you agree to release the unredacted log of your ban of WCM1 so that the Wikiversity communty can assess your professionalism? <BR>7:06:02 AM: *** Bromide (~Bromide@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>7:07:18 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, what do you imagine a scholar such as User:Jtneill will think when he reads this log? <BR>7:07:19 AM: wikiversil: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jtneill <BR>7:07:49 AM:   Bromide: He might think he is witnessing a textbook case of [redacted medical condition]. <BR>7:09:14 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, what do you imagine the stewards will think when they read the record of Sysop behavior at Wikiversity? http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Problematic_actions#policy_violations <BR>7:10:20 AM:  WCM3: 4:33:44 AM:    Sysop1: I can't say I care <BR>7:10:47 AM:  WCM3: 6:11:15 AM:    Sysop1: I can't say I really care what ArbCom has to say. <BR>7:10:52 AM:   Bromide: They might think they are witnessing the behavior of Javert, just before he "Went In Seine". <BR>7:11:31 AM:  WCM3: 6:21:41 AM:    Sysop1: anyway, I'm not clear why I'm supposed to care <BR>7:11:54 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1_ <BR>7:11:55 AM: *** Bromide has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1_ (Bromide) <BR>7:12:29 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, thanks for showing that you can see my questions <BR>7:13:55 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, why do persistently and uncaringly behave unprofessionally and misuse your position of trust and responsibility to prevent me from interacting with a scholar and fellow Wikiversity community member? Are you trying to terminate your Custodianship? <BR>7:14:44 AM:  Sysop1_: I'm doing what I consider is in the best interests of WV. I am well aware you disagree so no need to keep repeating it. <BR>7:15:51 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, please explain how you are advancing the mission of Wikiversity by the misuse of your position of trust and responsibility. <BR>7:16:17 AM: *** Bromide (~Bromide@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>7:16:24 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1_ <BR>7:16:25 AM: *** Bromide has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1_ (Bromide) <BR>7:16:49 AM:  WCM3: "I consider is in the best interests of WV" <-- how is preventing me from interacting with a fellow scholar in the best interests of WV? <BR>7:17:13 AM:  Sysop1_: ironic that WCM1 suggests I have [redacted medical condition]. who exactly is it that is so amazingly desperate to be involved in WV that he uses numerous proxies etc to do so... <BR>7:17:45 AM: *** Sysop1_ is now known as Sysop1 <BR>7:17:53 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, please let WCM1 participate here so he can explain that <BR>7:18:52 AM:  WCM3: did you read his user page? <BR>7:19:01 AM:  WCM3: the answer is there? <BR>7:19:19 AM:  WCM3: the answer is blowing in the wind? <BR>7:19:23 AM: *** Bromide (~Bromide@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>7:19:33 AM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@[IP]" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>7:19:35 AM: *** Bromide has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (Bromide) <BR>7:21:28 AM:  WCM3: how many years can some people exist, before they are allowed to be free? <BR>7:21:56 AM:  Sysop2: some people live there entires lives without freedom <BR>7:22:25 AM:  WCM3: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Music_and_learning#under_construction <BR>7:22:27 AM: *** Mode change "+b *Bromide*!*@*" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 <BR>7:22:58 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, you are providing inspiration for my music project <BR>7:23:11 AM:  WCM3: would you like to participate? <BR>7:23:51 AM:  WCM3: what role would suit your temperment? <BR>7:24:23 AM:   Sysop1: I have no interest but thanks for the offer. <BR>7:24:26 AM:  WCM3: let's see....which side of the Atlantic are you on? <BR>7:24:39 AM:  WCM3: but you are a natural <BR>7:25:04 AM:   Sysop1: personally, I see dredging up past conflicts for entertainment to be quite unhelpful <BR>7:25:34 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, do you have no interest in this learning project in particular or is your disinterest in learnng categorical? <BR>7:26:21 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, you are preventing a scholarly collaboration, the conflict is here and now <BR>7:26:23 AM:   Sysop1: I have no interest in that "learning project" nor any other which is obsessed with stirring up past problems <BR>7:27:01 AM:  WCM3: you misuse of tools is the current problem that is disrupting Wikiversity <BR>7:27:08 AM:  WCM3: you --> your <BR>7:27:28 AM:  WCM3: please provide a reason for your ban of WCM1 <BR>7:28:19 AM: *** Beckett (~Beckett@hardnews1.ansci.usu.edu) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>7:29:18 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, speaking of past problems, the community discussion of your custodianship candidacy left some unanswered questions <BR>7:29:29 AM:  WCM3: hi Beckett <BR>7:29:36 AM:  WCM3: that is a nice nick <BR>7:29:37 AM: *** Beckett has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (Beckett) <BR>7:30:23 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, will you now tell me why you came to Wikiversity in 2008? <BR>7:30:56 AM:   Sysop1: I don't know <BR>7:31:33 AM:   Sysop1: as I think I've told you before <BR>7:31:47 AM:  WCM3: When did you first become aware of WCM1? <BR>7:31:58 AM:  WCM3: maybe you just forgot <BR>7:32:06 AM:   Sysop1: on Wikinews I think it was <BR>7:32:12 AM:  WCM3: maybe if we explore the matter you will remember <BR>7:32:29 AM:  WCM3: What did WCM1 do at Wikinews? <BR>7:32:35 AM:   Sysop1: what will have prompted me to become active on WV is simply looking around the WMF projects and seeing something I felt I could contribute <BR>7:33:09 AM:   Sysop1: WCM3: you can look at his contribs if you're interested <BR>7:33:19 AM:  WCM3: how do you contribute to Wikiversity by preventing me from interacting with a fellow scholar? <BR>7:33:45 AM: *** Lorax1 (bkort@[IP]) has joined channel #wikiversity-en <BR>7:33:51 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, I would like to know what your initial reaction was to WCM1 <BR>7:33:58 AM:  WCM3: hi Lorax1 <BR>7:34:14 AM: *** Lorax1 has been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by Sysop1 (Lorax1) <BR>7:34:45 AM:  WCM3: when you saw WCM1 edit at Wikinews, what did you think? <BR>7:35:02 AM:  WCM3: did he vandalize the pages? <BR>7:35:17 AM:   Sysop1: not that  I recall. <BR>7:35:20 AM:  WCM3: did he disrupt Wikines in any way? <BR>7:35:25 AM:  WCM3: +w <BR>7:36:06 AM:  WCM3: did you post any discussion comments in the same thread as WCM1? <BR>7:36:33 AM:  WCM3: did you have any interaction with WCM1 at Wikinews? <BR>7:36:33 AM:   Sysop1: WCM3: if you are so interested you can figure it out WCM3. I can't remember all the edits I've ever made. <BR>7:36:39 AM:   Sysop1: see above <BR>7:37:20 AM:  WCM3: should we quote WCM1's edits from Wikinews, that might help your memory <BR>7:38:30 AM:   Sysop1: you can link to diffs if you really want but it might be helpful if you first explained the point you're trying to make here <BR>7:38:54 AM:  WCM3: maybe you formed no opinion of WCM1 until you two interacted at Wikiversity <BR>7:39:47 AM:  WCM3: I want to know why you are disrupting my learning goals by preventing me from collaborating with WCM1 at the music learning project and in this channel <BR>7:40:57 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, you are a uniques biological phenomenon, you are the only one who is enforcing a ban against WCM1's participation at Wikiversity <BR>7:41:26 AM:  WCM3: I'm a biologist, I study unusual biological phenomena <BR>7:41:44 AM:  WCM3: you have stimulated my curiosity <BR>7:42:11 AM:  WCM3: you are the most interesting object of learning currently at Wikiversity <BR>7:43:16 AM:  Sysop2: how does Sysop1 relate to biology? <BR>7:43:30 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, why won't you explain why you are preventing me from collaborating with my scholarly friend? <BR>7:44:27 AM:   Sysop1: whilst I am sorry if it is impacting on your learning projects, I'm afraid I consider it in the wider interests of WV that he not be participating. <BR>7:45:02 AM:  WCM3: Sysop2: how does Sysop1 relate to biology? <-- Sysop1 is human, based on good faith assumptions, which I make even in the face of evidence that he robotically bans a #wikiversity channel participants <BR>7:46:16 AM:  WCM3: "I'm afraid I consider it in the wider interests of WV that he not be participating. " <-- Sysop1, please elaborate on your reasoning in this matter and the nature of those "interests" <BR>7:46:25 AM:  WCM3: I quoted the Wikiversity missio <BR>7:46:31 AM:  WCM3: mission <BR>7:46:54 AM:  WCM3: how do your actions support the Wikiversity mission? <BR>7:47:21 AM:   Sysop1: brb <BR>7:48:20 AM:  WCM3: how does misusing your channel ops tools and preventing the participation of a scholarly expert, an expert in online learning communities, support the Wikiversity mission? <BR>7:48:54 AM:   Sysop1: I have better things to do with my time JWS <BR>7:50:07 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, do you have better things to do than support the Wikiversity mission and use your position of trust in a responsible way <BR>7:51:07 AM:  Sysop2: how does Sysop1 being human relate your biology learning goals? <BR>7:51:22 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, do you feel no obligation to explain to me, a mystified observer, why you are abusively misusing your tools and disrupting Wikiversity? <BR>7:51:50 AM: *** Sysop1 is now known as Sysop1_ <BR>7:51:56 AM: *** Mode change "-o Sysop1_" on #wikiversity-en by Sysop1_ <BR>7:52:29 AM:  WCM3: Sysop2: how does Sysop1 being human relate your biology learning goals? <-- I've studied the human brain and human behavior for several decades, I never tire of learning about special exceptional cases of human biology <BR>7:52:51 AM:  Sysop2: s/why you are abusively misusing your tools and disrupting Wikiversity?/why you are using your tools to block WCM1?/ <BR>7:53:43 AM:  Sysop2: how is Sysop1 an exceptional? how is Sysop1 special? how is Sysop1 a special exceptional case? <BR>7:53:49 AM:  Sysop1_: Wikiversity doesn't exist as a lab for you or WCM1 to study and experiment on the other contributors <BR>7:54:35 AM:  WCM3: it does not exist for that purpose, but you have forced that purpose upon us <BR>7:55:46 AM:   WCM3: "how is Sysop1 a special exceptional case?" <-- see this http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Problematic_actions <BR>7:56:20 AM:  WCM3: "how is Sysop1 a special exceptional case?" <-- that is a matter for community review <BR>7:56:37 AM:  WCM3: Can anyone explain the basis in Wikiversity policy for reverting WCM1's edits? <BR>7:56:56 AM:  Sysop1_: "You are now ignoring WCM3." lol <BR>7:58:25 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, what do you think a scholar like User:Jtneill will think when he reads this chat log? <BR>7:58:26 AM: wikiversil: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jtneill <BR>7:58:55 AM:  WCM3: do you think he will say, "lol"? <BR>7:59:54 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, if you are proud of you actions here, then please agree that I can release the unredacted text of this chat session <BR>8:01:50 AM:  WCM3: would someone comfortable with the truth fail to allow the Wikiversity community to read this chat log? <BR>8:02:10 AM:  WCM3: they are going to read it, unredacted or redacted <BR>8:02:57 AM:  WCM3: Sysop1, you prefer to hide your bad behavior in annonymity? <BR>8:03:23 AM:  WCM3: okay <BR>8:03:34 AM:  WCM3: we do it your way

Vandalism Policy
See the proposal at Vandalism.

Blocking policy
Wikiversity needs rules for blocks (see discussion).

Remedy. Make the Blocking policy official<BR> Remedy. Improve the proposed Blocking policy by adding protections against blocks being imposed by Wikimedia functionaries who do not first seek community consensus. See the proposal for an Official policy on blocking.

Deletion policy
Wikiversity needs rules for page deletion. See Outside intervention.

Out-of-process page deletions. Speedy deletion is for obvious vandalism. All other page deletion decisions are made by consensus at Requests for Deletion.

Examples:


 * Music and learning was a learning project created as an exploration of how music can facilitate learning. "In this learn by doing project, we will each explore our own musical interests while collaborating to document the ways that music stimulates learning." The Music and learning page was deleted without discussion as "beyond scope".


 * User:Son of Beetlebaum was a harmless user page. 30 July 2010 User:Diego Grez deleted User:Son of Beetlebaum with the reason ‎given as: "Unneeded now".


 * 30 July 2010 User:Diego Grez deleted User talk:Son of Beetlebaum ‎ with the reason ‎given as: "Unneeded now".

See also: More examples of page deletion without discussion at the community review of outside interventions.

Remedy. Make the proposed Deletion policy official. See the page deletion policy proposal.

CheckUser policy
The Wikiversity community needs protection against misuse of CheckUser data.

See the proposal for CheckUser rules.

Other proposed policies

 * Academic freedom
 * Bureaucratship
 * Cite sources
 * Child protection policy
 * Course Titles and Numbers
 * Course protection policy
 * Disclosures
 * External links
 * Make no assumptions
 * Manual of Style
 * Naming conventions
 * Network naming conventions
 * Original research
 * Page protection templates
 * Polls
 * Respect people
 * Productive Forking and Tailoring is Encouraged
 * Real world schools
 * Scholarly ethics
 * Subpages
 * Username
 * User page
 * What Wikiversity is not
 * Catalyst

Guidelines
There has been conflict over how consensus is established.
 * Consensus

See: The proposal for an official policy on consensus.

Failure to act by consensus
Examples:


 * See this: an individual's action that prevented the community from making a page deletion decision by consensus.


 * Music and learning: deletion of a harmless learning resource with no community discussion.


 * Capricious bans, imposed by rogue sysops, bans unilaterally imposed on Wikiversity scholars:
 * Moulton declared as "community banned" with no supporting evidence provided.
 * With no community consensus, one individual bans scholars from the Wikiversity community chat channel.

Remedy. See the proposal for an Official policy on consensus.

Proposed improvements
Proposed improvements to Wikiversity policies and procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.


 * Rollback Policy Fix
 * Policy for IRC chat
 * Privacy Issues
 * Truth in Advertising
 * Vandalism
 * Page Deletion
 * CheckUser rules
 * Official policy on consensus
 * Official policy on blocking

Rollback Policy Fix
It is proposed that conflicting parts of the Rollback policy be harmonized so as to support collaborative editing at Wikiversity and prevent conflicts between editors. See: the Rollback section of this community review. --JWSchmidt 11:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy for IRC chat
The #wikiversity-en chat channel is a meeting place for Wikiversity community members. Rather than serve to promote collaborative learning, the chat channel has become a source of community conflict and disruption of the Wikiversity project. A set of guidelines for use of the chat channel has been proposed. See: the community discussion of the chat channel. --JWSchmidt 11:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A dedicated page for Chat Channel Policy
From 2006 to 2008 the Wikiversity chat channel played an important role in building and sustaining the Wikiversity community. As documented in this page, above, the channel is now dominated by a few irresponsible sysops who use it to bully Wikiversity community members, ignorantly mock scholarly Wikiversity participants, make and impose Wikiversity rules that are not discussed on-wiki by the community, call each other out over disputes and impose bans against channel participation, bans based on personal whims, with no warnings, discussion, reasons given or possibility of questioning the capricious misuse of channel operator tools.

Above, it was suggested that the proposed IRC chat channel policy go into a dedicated page for further development and discussion. "I see no reason why the community shouldn't be asked to consider and make official such policy to help establish community expectations and the role and usage of the chat channel.". One possibility would be to use the Wikiversity talk:Chat page for community discussion of the proposed chat channel policy. --JWSchmidt 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Privacy Issues
Wikiversity needs guidelines that will help protect anonymous Wikiversity editors and help protect Wikiversity from disruption by anonymous editors. See: community discussion of the proposed Wikiversity Privacy Policy. --JWSchmidt 11:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note. Development of the proposed privacy policy was disrupted by a bad block and tag-team removal of parts of the proposal by User:Adambro and User:Darklama. User:Ottava Rima disrupted development of the proposed privacy policy by prematurely calling for ratification of a version of the policy that does not address the needed parts of the policy that are under community review. --JWSchmidt 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising
Either advertise WVBD as the Bomis Boyz&trade; Bondage and Discipline Fetish Site that it has become for the past two years, or reconstruct it as an authentic Democratic Learning Community. —Gastrin Bombesin 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Every Sunday, mourning, over WVBD B&D a fargenigen.<BR> B&D men ken a bootkick krigen.<BR> A snoot, a Kort, a gabby dean.<BR> Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing."

<Blockquote> [Source: "Joe and Paul" with Klezmer music accompaniment by Sholom Secunda, courtesy of the NPR Yiddish Radio Project.] </Blockquote>


 * edit data for the above: 00:14, 21 July 2010 18.85.4.143 (→Proposals: Please discuss whether this song parody is vandalism or not. Support your view with evidence, analysis, and reasoning.) Why would this be considered vandalism? I see no basis for that at all. It's not prima facie vandalism, and though it might be considered off-topic, "off-topic" isn't vandalism. It's also not posted by a blocked user. I'd assume that this is from a sock puppet of Moulton, which is normally declared or so obvious that it doesn't matter, and Moulton is not currently blocked; the discussion taking place at Vandalism includes argument that edits by blocked editors may be treated as vandalism, even if they are not otherwise vandalism, because of a more general meaning of vandalism as disruptive editing, which block evasion represents. No block evasion here, because there cannot be block evasion without a block. Come to think of it, Caprice is still blocked, so there could be a technical basis, but I'll fix that. Caprice was only blocked because of technical requirements and a little nasty business there on the Talk page with Ottava, hopefully not to be repeated. (I intend to unblock Caprice [done] and to then continue to consider Caprice as a legitimate sock of Moulton, with Moulton then being considered responsible for all Caprice behavior. Be careful, Barry, unless you really do prefer to be blocked again. I.e., if Caprice is blocked, I'd assume that Moulton would be blocked also. And if one is unblocked, so too should the other be. Declared sock.


 * Now, I don't know that this will last, but here we are with Moulton unblocked as demanded by JWSchmidt, whether the unblocking custodians were honest or not. I wonder if it will have any effect on the confusion of complaints. Currently some Moulton IP is blocked, by Adambro enforcing a technically non-existent block, I've asked him to reverse that, perhaps he will.


 * Just to make it clear, with freedom comes responsibility. Moulton is now free to log in to an account (Caprice) and edit. And so Moulton is now fully responsible. What happens next isn't up to me.... --Abd 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The original edit adding the content at the top of this discussion was rolled back by Adambro. Rollback policy says: "When a custodian reverts an edit that is not obvious vandalism the rollback button shouldn't be used." Adambro gave this good faith contribution to Wikiversity the same treatment given to vandalism. Adambro provided no explanation of why he censored this community discussion. Such capricious sysop actions cause dismay and confusion and disrupt Wikiversity. I agree with the proposal. Wikiversity should be honest. If this is a place where rogue sysops bash scholars with their toy banhammers then that should be declared on the front page. Alternatively, we can return Wikiversity to the rational and tranquil conditions that existed before the banhammer culture was imposed in 2008. --JWSchmidt 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but before the ban in 2008, this was a lawless community in which a prominent member used it as a platform for attacks upon those who made him upset at en.wikipedia. Stop trying to rewrite history, especially in such a blatantly misleading way. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "attacks upon those who made him upset" <-- Ottava Rima, what is the evidence that supports your claim that there were "attacks"? Ottava Rima, please provide evidence to support your claim. In 2008 there were false accusations made about "attack pages". The Wikiversity community did not find any such pages. What attacks are you talking about? "lawless community" <-- Wikiversity was a peaceful community of collaborating learners then a gang of invaders arrived on a declared mission to eliminate a Wikiversity scholar. Lawlessness arrived with the Wikipedians in 2008. --JWSchmidt 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence to prove that using people's private information to mock them is not an attack? It would seem that by definition it fits my descriptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a very good friend who teaches Mass Media Ethics at the Utah State University School of Journalism. A long time ago, I asked her if parody and satire were considered incivil or unethical.  She said that these art forms are protected free speech, and that they perfectly ethical methods of lampooning corrupt officials.  --Barry Kort 03:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You know the US Constitution does not apply here and 2. You know that something can be harassing and incivil while being "protected speech". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation must comply with all laws of the State of Florida. I'm not a legal scholar, but doesn't the US Constitution hold sway in every State? Ottava Rima, rather than blithely introduce unsupported insinuations, please add your evidence of harassment and incivility to the appropriate part of this community review and let User:Moulton defend himself against your accusations. Please don't force upon Wikiversity reenactment of the witch hunting and show trials that he was subjected to in 2008 and 2009. Such barbaric practices are no longer being enforced by representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation and I suspect that the new Chair of the Board would be appalled to learn that a Wikiversity scholar like User:Moulton, an expert in online learning communities, is being prevented from participating at Wikiversity, in contradiction to both the Wikimedia Foundation's Mission and the Wikiversity project's Mission. --JWSchmidt 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima says: "the US Constitution does not apply here" The Bill of Rights, which is distinct from the Consitution, is the basis of all rights documents in the World, from the UN Charter to Vietnam's constituion; the right to expression in implicit in human society. --John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandalism is not a serious problem at Wikiversity. The Wikiversity community has been disrupted by disputes over the definition of "vandalism". It is proposed that Vandalism be made an official Wikiversity policy. See: this community discussion. --JWSchmidt 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest it would be better to discuss this at Wikiversity talk:Vandalism. Please see the comments I will be making there shortly. Adambro 12:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd made a proposal to treat good faith edits as vandalism, a proposal that must be rejected as a misguided effort that seeks institutionalize alienation of valuable Wikiversity community members. All Custodians who have been falsifying logs or violated policy by using the rollback tool to revert edits that are not obvious vandalism should recuse themselves from development of the proposed policy on vandalism. --JWSchmidt 13:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no such proposal, and this distorted presentation of what I did state is an example of the mess that all this has become. First of all, is an edit by a blocked editor a "good faith edit." Maybe, maybe not, eh? It is an edit which generally violates standard wiki policy. What I proposed is standard: the edits of blocked editors may be reverted without consideration of the content. That doesn't mean that they are "vandalism," as we ordinarily understand that, but rather than they may be treated as if they were vandalism, i.e., rollback may be used, and the reverting editor need not even review the content. What I proposed went on to say, "such edits should not be called "vandalism," thus we can see that JWS has presented what I wrote in such a way as to reverse the meaning. A policy on vandalism here would not apply to how blocked editors are treated, because their edits may be reverted without review of content. However, there is a huge difference between the "good faith edit" of a blocked user and "vandalism." If an unblocked editor reverts back in "vandalism," they can themselves be blocked if they continue after warning. But reverting back in a reasonable edit by a blocked user is not "restoring vandalism," though some may object to it on some other basis.
 * What I've noticed is that JWS complains bitterly about the reverting of edits by Moulton, but almost never restores them, which he could easily do, apparently he prefers to complain about sysops doing what is simply standard policy, enforcing a block. Without this policy, a block means nothing. We'd be better off getting rid of them. He may agree with that (and I might as well, there are other ways to handle disruption) but that is a completely different issue. We have blocks, and sysops may enforce them if they choose. If we don't like that they enforce a block, we should act to lift the block, and, I'd ask JWS, what has he done to accomplish this? Compared to, say, myself?
 * Basically, what this boils down to is a complaint that sysops have used rollback instead of ordinary reverting or restoration of an older version, which is a fairly small technical difference. The difference is that rollback, a tool which lightens the load on the server, produces an automatic edit summary. Compared to the problem of, say, a bad block, or massive range blocks to keep a user from making relatively harmless or easily handled "block evading edits," it's piffle. And it's piffle taken to the community as a Community Review, which causes people to stop paying attention to Community Reviews. It's seriously disruptive. Now, this review has slowed down, but it remains as active, and there are references to it all over.


 * It's time to shut this beast down, see below. --Abd 01:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion
There are conflicting/different views about the page deletion process. The proposed Deletion policy should be made official. --JWSchmidt 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser rules
The CheckUser feature is to be used to fight vandalism or check for sock puppets when there is a suspicion of illegal voting. Fishing expeditions to investigate harmless Wikiversity accounts are not allowed. The CheckUser policy should be made official. --JWSchmidt 23:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Official policy on consensus
There are conflicting/different views about consensus. This has been particularly damaging for needed policy development. With no concern for policy or community consensus, rogue sysops simply do what they want to do (see examples). Proposal: the current guidelines for consensus should be made official policy. --JWSchmidt 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Official policy on blocking
Calling for unjustified blocks and bans is a serious violation of the Civility policy. The block tool has frequently misused by Wikiversity sysops. The proposed Blocking policy should be made official policy. --JWSchmidt 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Alterations to the proposed blocking policy that do not address the issues that are under community review, made by users who have violated policy by calling for and imposing unjustified blocks, involve a conflict of interest. People who have misused the block tool should not write the policy for blocks. see this discussion.

New Proposal

 * add your proposal here

Propose closure of this Community Review
This was not properly designed as a Community Review, which should represent a relatively narrow matter, already adequately discussed to determine that consensus cannot be found with a smaller scale discussion. A Community Review to discuss "Problematic actions," with no focus but whatever a particular user has found problematic over the last two years, like a shotgun loaded with the kitchen sink and miscellaneous refuse, is disruptive and should not have been allowed. Obviously, we need Community Review policy, so that will be a task to work on!

I propose closure. I am the only person to edit this page in the last month. What a waste of time! --Abd 01:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "community review" system is a sham, pushed through as policy by a small group of people who wanted to impose a failed system from Wikipedia. I find it interesting that policy-violating sysops would disrupt, ignore and condemn this community review while using other community reviews as a way to violate policy by calling for unjustified blocks and bans. Yet another remarkable chapter in the history of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The devil is in the details. Watch Community Review for a demonstration of how to do it, coming soon. For a preview, see User:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima, and feel free to correct errors (but it's not in WV space yet, so I'm moderating it at this point. I just got a whole pile of new material last night, courtesy of Ottava. Meanwhile, I'm sensing that JWS does not mind this process being closed. I'd recommend it be closed without prejudice, i.e., specific community reviews on topics that might have been raised here could be filed in the future, even soon. JWS, if you will pick one topic, I'm willing to assist you in presenting it, even if I disagree with you. And I might not disagree, you have raised many important questions. --Abd 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)