Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Threats to the Wikiversity project

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:
 * Moulton‎
 * Outside interventions‎
 * Policy development‎
 * 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.

Threats to the Wikiversity project

 * "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board." - User:Jimbo Wales
 * Sue Gardner - "I'm commenting here because Jimmy mentioned my name, and I got a few e-mails asking whether I'm supporting him. So I want to publicly say yes, I do."
 * Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity - User:Raul654

Topics for community discussion
What was the Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments project about? Why was it deleted? Why did it prompt User:Jimbo Wales to discuss the closure of Wikiversity? What were the results of discussion between User:Jimbo Wales and the Board? Was a valid reason ever given for deleting Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments? Should the Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments project now be undeleted? Why do some Wikipedians object to the idea that someone who is banned from Wikipedia can participate at Wikiversity? Will Wikipedians always control and disrupt Wikiversity and try to eliminate it? Given such threats to Wikiversity, why should anyone devote time to building Wikiversity?

Questions about threats

 * How are Wikiversity custodians or participants to blame for these actions? Do you blame Wikiversity community members or custodians for these actions? -- dark lama  14:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, are you trying to blame Wikiversity community members for Jimbo's odious attempt to intimidate the Wikiversity community? --JWSchmidt 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I thought you might be blaming Wikiversity community members for those actions though, since you brought it up here. You didn't say why these actions were brought up, which could mean you blame Wikiversity community members for those actions. -- dark lama  15:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh? The people mentioned above are not regular Wikiversity participants. Jimbo made a rash statement in March. It did some damage, I suspect. But so what? What is the "problematic action" here? That Jimbo said such and such? There was, in fact, no Board support for closing Wikiversity at that time. There was already an RfC on meta covering Jimbo's actions, and the result, ultimately, was that Jimbo resigned from the intrusive "action tools." In other words, this particular battle is over. So why is JWS bringing it up? Jimbo did take certain actions in March. We can and will undo these if we so decide. Let's see if JWS actually proposes something concrete or just wants to complain more. What solution would JWS propose for this problem? Jimbo already suffered the possible humiliation of a 4:1 !vote to remove his Founder tools on meta, with over 500 !votes. What does JWS want? Public flogging? Putting Jimbo in stocks? --Abd 15:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that the "problematic action" was an out-of-process intervention that, under the best of conditions, would take months to undo via "baby steps" carried out at a snail's pace. So far, there isn't even much of a community discussion to decide whether to find a way to remediate the damage.  As I recall, it was just a few days ago, Abd, that you and others were stipulating that any such community review would be untimely and off-limits from the discussion forums here.  Moulton 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "It did some damage, I suspect. But so what?" Abd, how many Wikiversity participants left the project in disgust following Jimbo's bullying? How many honest Wikiversity Custodians remain intimidated by such outside interference in Wikiversity affairs? --JWSchmidt 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "What solution would JWS propose for this problem?" <-- I have repeatedly (recent example) proposed that since Moulton was subjected to an infinite duration block imposed from outside Wikiversity against Wikiversity community consensus and since Moulton was subjected to a global ban that was put in place without Wikiversity community consensus, the User:Moulton account should be unblocked by an honest Custodian with a log entry indicating that the original indef block was made against Wikiversity community consensus. Constructive edits from any source should always be allowed to stand at Wikiversity. There is no basis in Wikiversity policy for censorship of constructive contributions to Wikiversity community discussions. Sysops must stop abusing the "protect" tool so as to censor Wikiversity community discussions. --JWSchmidt 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to the request to unblock Moulton, my understanding is that the current local WV block is based on the 2008 community review: Community Review/Moulton's block. An unblock request could be made as a separate community review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I urge Wikiversity participants to closely examine the nature of the 2008 "community" review. As discussed here the 2008 "community" review had no basis in policy, it was an orchestrated show trial that took place while Wikiversity community members had been blocked and the existence of Wikiversity threatened in an attempt to intimidate the community. The closing statement on that 2008 "community" review is a fabrication. There was no announcement to the Wikiversity community that a ban of Moulton would be discussed let alone proclaimed by User:SB Johnny. The abortive discussion of a proposed ban (page section: "Proposed Ban of Moulton") that is on that page was closed as "Withdrawn per nom". Why is such a travesty of justice still being enforced? User:Moulton should be unblocked at once. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes community review had no documented process at the time. What policy requires that a process be documented first? How was the review "orchestrated"? How was the review a "show trial"? Do you mean that the outcome of the review was the result of community intimidation? Do you have any evidence to support that people were intimidated? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that the outcome would of been any different? -- dark lama  17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS says "As discussed here the 2008 "community" review had no basis in policy". That may be true however that doesn't make it invalid. Since it is the community that decides policies, the community can decide to do things not documented in a policy or go against policies. That may influence later policy development or, in the case of existing policies, prompt a rewriting. On the issue of polices, or lack of, on a similar note, that there isn't a policy specifying a particular behaviour is not permitted again doesn't mean that the community cannot declare the behaviour unacceptable and block. Adambro 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That brings up some other good questions. What policy invalidates any discussion that isn't based in policy? What policy invalidates any decision that isn't based in policy? What policy invalidates any consensus that isn't based in policy? -- dark lama  17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What policy requires that a process be documented first?" <-- Not policy...it is common sense, human decency and principles of justice that tell honest wiki participants that there should have been a community discussion before Wikipedians imposed the disruptive Wikipedia system of bad blocks, threats, and show trials upon the Wikiversity community. Wikilawyering in support of unjust practices is disrupting the Wikiversity community. Unjust practices like bad blocks, threats, and show trials disrupt the Wikiversity mission. I'm astonished that a few misguided sysops continue speak in support of such vile practices. The imposition of bad blocks, threats, and show trials destroyed the Wikiversity community. How was the review "orchestrated"? <-- Darklama, why don't you tell the Wikiversity community the details. I was subjected to a bogus ban (which you enforced) from #wikiversity-en by the sysop who falsified the closing statement of the "community" review that we are discussing. I have the IRC channel logs of events leading up to that ban, the bad block that was imposed on my editing and the emergency desysop that I was subjected to when no emergency existed. Darklama, please tell us how it was decided that I should be blocked, banned and desysoped without community consensus? Who orchestrated those abominable acts? Why did you not object to such horrible practices being introduced to the Wikiversity community? As you well know, I was abused by the same people orchestrated the "community" review of Moulton's block and turned it into a show trial. Darklama, I've asked before, do you agree that IRC logs showing your actions in #wikiversity-en can be published at Wikiversity so that the community can see how you and other sysops abused your channel operator power and used that channel to orchestrate events at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the #wikiversity-en channel was used to make decisions that effect the wiki? #wikiversity-en has never been used to make decisions that effect the wiki in my presence. I would object to using #wikiversity-en to make decisions that effect the wiki, if anyone ever proposed doing so in my presence. No decision to block Moulton or you from the wiki was ever discussed in #wikiversity-en in my presence. I have on occasions suggested that discussion be moved to wiki when I thought discussion should happen on wiki. Your implications that the #wikiversity-en was used to make decisions sounds like paranoia and a failure to assume good faith to me. -- dark lama  18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the #wikiversity-en channel was used to make decisions that effect the wiki? <-- This is why Wikiversity needs a policy that will guide behavior in that chat channel, rather than allow abusive sysops to operate in secret. I ask again, do you agree that the logs relevant to your participation in #wikiversity-en can be used as evidence here in this community review? Early in the existence of Wikiversity precedent was set for publishing chat logs on wiki, for example, see this. Of course, that kind of openness was before the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 when a few abusive sysops started to misuse their channel operator powers. Wikiversity has, before the hostile takeover, even used #wikiversity-en for community discussion of needed policies. "I would object to using #wikiversity-en to make decisions that effect the wiki, if anyone ever proposed doing so in my presents" <-- The #wikiversity-en chat channel was used in many constructive ways before the hostile takeover. I think that the Wikiversity community should return to making use of the Wikiversity chat channel as a public meeting place for collaborating Wikiversity participants. "Your implications that the #wikiversity-en was used to make decisions sounds like paranoia and a failure to assume good faith to me." <-- This is why the Wikiversity community needs a policy that opens the chat channel to scrutiny by the community. I have chat logs showing how #wikiversity-en has been used. Please agree that all chat logs related to your participation in #wikiversity-en can be used here in this community review as evidence. --JWSchmidt 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the Wikiversity precedent relied on asking participants permission to publish what they said before doing so. How is that any different from now? Are you suggesting that precedent isn't enough any more? Again you sound paranoid and like you are failing to assume good faith. -- dark lama  19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I believe the Wikiversity precedent relied on asking participants permission to publish" <-- but in those peaceful days there was then (before the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008) no need to protect community members from abusive channel operators. Why won't you agree to let the community see how you have behaved in #wikiversity-en? Honest Custodians are proud of their actions and have nothing to hide. We can start here: User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10. Did you participate in that IRC chat session? In that channel log, do you see any stated decisions about what will happen on-wiki? Did you object to it? --JWSchmidt 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that discussion started before I was at my keyboard, I do not know the entire story, and I was a bit busy at the time with other things to give the discussion my full attention. I would say that I was not actively involved in that discussion, but yes I did inject objections into the discussion to things I noticed being said as time allowed. Not being aware of the whole story, I also have no idea to what extent any decision was actually being made or proposed, or what anyone's intentions actually were. I believe I was not in any position to accurately judge what if anything needed to be done. Adambro was in a better position than me to decide what course of action if anything needed to be done. -- dark lama  21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you have had a chance to give your full attention to what was said here, if that kind of discussion takes place in #wikiversity-en then should the entire Wikiversity community have access to the chat log or do you believe that such discussions should be hidden from the community? If you think that they should be hidden, please explain why. Do you agree that blocks should be limited to 24 hours? Where is the on-wiki community discussion of the idea that blocks should be limited to 24 hours? Do you agree that "In all other cases a clear warning must first be left on the participant's talk page"? Do you think the wikiversity community should have a chance to decide if #wikiversity-en chat is or is not "private correspondence" or have you decided that matter for the community? Please provide your definition of "correspondence". Isn't #wikiversity-en a public IRC channel, by definition? --JWSchmidt 22:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing that the "log" is the complete story, so I haven't given my full attention to it. I think people can discuss issues from irc without a log. I believe a irc log is circumstantial evidence since there is no way for anyone that wasn't there to know whether the record is accurate or accurately represents the whole picture. People can join in at different points of a conversation as well, resulting in different perspectives of whats going on. Anyone can falsify evidence to suit their agenda by claiming that a discussion happened on irc. I haven't decided anything for the community. My last change to the privacy proposal removed any mention of irc at all, leaving whether it is or not up in the air. #wikiversity-en is open to the public in the sense that anyone can join at any time, but the irc daemon software does not keep a permanent record of discussions for public viewing like wiki does. A bar can be open to the public, while still being a privately owned business, to use an analogy. Another analogy might be a voting station that is open to the public, while people still having an expectation of privacy within a voting booth. -- dark lama  00:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "whether the record is accurate" <-- Maybe we could use a bot to make an automated record directly to a Wikimedia server. I'd prefer to have a permanent log available rather than allowing channel operators to continue misusing their power. "I haven't decided anything for the community" <-- You keep removing important parts of the proposal rather than let the community see those parts and discuss them. --JWSchmidt 03:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A single bot? You do realize more than one server makes up freenode right? You would need a bot on ever server in order to continue to log everything should connection problems between servers lead to two or more servers disconnecting from each other. What happens if any bot(s) have connections problems of their own? You can't stop people from talking. Also how does logging #wikiversity-en in any way address your concern that people are discussing things and making decisions in "secret"? I think a Wikiversity policy requiring decisions to be based in consensus established on-wiki is the only effective way to limit any potential for abuse that could arise from using other communication mediums, and the only established way to keep all discussions open and transparent.
 * The community can use the "history" button to view what you wrote, you could also add what you wrote to the talk page. -- dark lama  12:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "servers disconnecting" <-- I doubt if it would strain Wikimedia resources to log from every freenode server. "a Wikiversity policy requiring decisions to be based in consensus established on-wiki" <-- this has always been implicit policy, it is sad that it needs to be "made official" so that it can be officially ignored. "to keep all discussions open and transparent" <-- I doubt if a policy requiring decisions to be based in consensus established on-wiki would prevent abuses of channel ops. The community can use the "history" button <-- And how many people never look in the history or read the talk page? Darklama please stop disrupting the ability of Wikiversity community members to propose new policy. --JWSchmidt 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt freenode would be willing to give Wikimedia permission to do that, assuming Wikimedia were willing. I agree that "decisions require on-wiki discussion" has always been implicitly policy, but not everyone seems to know that or agree with it. How do you expect the Wikiversity community to discuss proposed policies if they don't know how to read a talk page? JWSchmidt, please start making sense. -- dark lama  14:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I doubt freenode would be willing" <-- Why not. How would they even know about it? "How do you expect the Wikiversity community to discuss proposed policies if they don't know how to read a talk page?" <-- I think it is clear that most Wikiversity participants are not interested in policies. On the rare occasions when a notice is posted asking that community members help with policy development they should not have to go on a hunt to learn what has been proposed and what is under discussion. Anyhow, the privacy policy is a matter for another thread. --JWSchmidt 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How was the review a "show trial"? <-- From Show trial: "Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law." As you are well aware, Moulton was blocked from participation at Wikiversity during that show trial. Votes were already being cast while I was blocked from participating in the show trial. The show trial violated basic principles of justice such as allowing the accused a chance to be defended against bogus charges: Moulton never violated a Wikiversity policy. The show trial was closed by an involved sysop who had started the foolishness of blocking Moulton even though Moulton had violated no Wikiversity policy. It was a show trial because the Wikiversity community had been intimidated by threats against the very existence of Wikiversity. Moulton was treated like a scape goat to appease the Godking. The wiki hitman who came to Wikiversity on the mission to get Moulton banned participated in the show trial. The show trial was deceptively called "Moulton's block" and then closed as constituting a community ban, without the community being informed that a ban might be imposed. The essence of a show trial is that "guilty" is the verdict before the trial starts. Under the threats and intimidation and strong-arm tactics abusively employed by Jimbo and the invading thugs from Wikipedia who had targeted Moulton for a ban it was certain that the "community" review would reach the conclusion that it did. Darklama, you are aware of all these facts, but I thank you for asking the question so that the Wikiversity community can now discuss this abominable chapter in Wikiversity history. Justice should finally be done and User:Moulton should be unblocked by an honest Custodian. --JWSchmidt 18:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that the outcome of the review was the result of community intimidation? Do you have any evidence to support that people were intimidated? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that the outcome would of been any different? <-- If someone came into your house and shot a member of your family, and got away with doing so, someone who could come back at any time for another shot, would you feel intimidated? If you want data I suggest we start a living history project and collect the data. We can invite back to Wikiversity all of the Wikiversity community members who have been blocked and banned since the hostile takeover in 2008 and ask if they feel intimidated by the abuse that they have been subjected to. We can invite back all of the honest Custodians who resigned in protest and quit participating in disgust. I can provide my personal data point: I feared for Wikiversity, that Jimbo would terminate the project, that there would be continuing bullying of the community if anyone dared resist, question or challenge his bad block. I doubt if you seriously think that the Wikiversity community was free of intimidation or that the level of intimidation was not huge and of decisive importance for the show trial that we are discussing. But let's start the data collection. Darklama, why don't you do the honorable thing and start by unblocking User:Moulton so he can finally defend himself against the horrific abuse that has been heaped upon him. Let Moulton come to this community discussion and share his thoughts. --JWSchmidt 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Need for a synopisis
I am personally overwhelmed by the text here -- simply too much to get a clear picture. It would be helpful to see a synopsis, especially focusing on what Mr Wales is unhappy about. Also, how does the board feel? I will keep working no matter what happens, transferring my writing to another wiki if necessary.

I sent this email to JWSchmidt, but he refered me here, so I assume it is OK to present it as an open letter now (delete irrelevant sections as necessary):


 * 'Did Jimbo Wales really say this? Or is it a fabrication?'
 * "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER."
 * I have personally long held that we need to "give unto the Wikipedia," as in "give unto Caesar," because it is big and we are small -- and for no other reason.
 * Mr Wales mentions OER, which is "open educational resource," which I believe he means to be an educational, or perhaps "how to," version of the Wikipedia, which extends the concept of origial research to mean anything that is not the basic doctrine of the Wikipedia, which I am increasingly beginning to believe represents the basic "oligarchy" of Western Civilization, as it has been passed through to us from the ancient empires.
 * There is an odd movement on the Wikipedia to attempt to encapsulate very liberal concepts within very conservative ones, which may perhaps be the proper definition Neo-liberalism. You can see this in nearly any discussion, for instance, of anarchism; it reminds me of the attempted take-over by neo-nazis of the anarchist punk movement of the 1980s --why would anybody want to do something like that(?) it makes no sense!
 * My own research strategies are based on knowledge construction as an extension of scientific modeling; they are based on the idea of the building blocks upon which we all stand, and they are supported heavily by Constructivism, the educational branch created early in the last century by Vygotsky.
 * In knowledge construction there is no subjective or objective -- only valid data that can be used as building blocks. So-much-so that "objective" actually describes the use of objects as building blocks as an extension of computer science's object-oriented engineering, and not non-emotional thinking.
 * In Constructivism, all concepts are valid, including misconceptions. Misconceptions are important because Constructivists feel they need a starting place to build, which often means dismantling preconceptions in such a way that no one is offended, and that re-usable data is preserved to be reimplemented in ways that support valid models.
 * This is where I am personally going with the support of my former professors and mentors. I developed and documented these ideas while on the Wikiversity, and there is no logical reason for me to abandon them.
 * I am concerned that this educational and research trend (obviously not mine alone), is what is bothering Mr Wales; it is the modernization of modernism. In other words, knowledge construction does for Science what Picasso did for fine art; it brings us back to the roots of naturally-evolved human thought.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how reviewing this issue can lead to any betterment of the community. It is repeated claimed that the people making threats are outsiders to this community.  As I understand this review we are looking for ways to improve our policy, and our policy wouldn't apply to people outside our community.  What do we hope to accomplish, if the board members want to discuss shutting wikiversity down that is their prerogative, and not something that we can mandate against with our policy.  I can't imagine any solution beyond relocating our contributions to a non-WMF wiki, which anyone who wants to can do anyways.  There is nothing really gained by discussing it here. Thenub314 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Wikiversity community can be protected by a Wikiversity policy on blocking and one on page deletion. User:Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and useful Wikiversity learning resources have been subjected to out-of-process page deletion (one famous example). Such odious abuses of power must be avoided in the future since they are contrary to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and values and the Wikiversity mission. Please read, Approved Wikiversity project proposal and this where it says, "We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community." "We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public." The Wikimedia Foundation has a, Commitment to openness and diversity. This is our shared vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Wikiversity studies of ethical practices in Wikimedia has been declared outside the scope of Wikiversity by Wikimedia functionaries who, rather than respect the Wikiversity community, conspire in secret to eliminate scholars from participation at Wikiversity and who act in defiance of Wikiversity community consensus. Since 2008, disruptive Wikimedia functionaries have routinely censored and deleted valuable Wikiversity learning resources while falsely asserting that those learning materials were "outside of scope", disrupting the Wikiversity community and violating our shared vision and commitment. For example, an interesting exploration of ethical action was deleted. Why are such valuable Wikiversity learning resources destroyed by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trusties? Why do other Wikimedia functionaries inflict similar disruption upon the Wikiversity community, terrorizing and intimidating Wikiversity's scholarly participants? The disruption of Wikiversity that has occurred since 2008 is corruption of the stated goals and methods of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is now being documented in all of its sickening details at this community review. How does "We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public." become perverted into barbaric threats and intimidation made against the Wikiversity community, threats made in a bullying show of blatant disrespect for the consensus of the Wikiversity community? This community review process is leading to proposals for how to protect the Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 22:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if, for the sake of argument, I were to grant that everything you say above is correct and accurate this whole section is still moot. Your comments above really relate to what you have titled below as outside intervention.  We perhaps can discuss policies about how to handle things if/when we feel the WMF has exerted undue outside influence.  This section, judging from its first few sentences this section, should be about people at WMF discussing the closure of WV. The servers are theirs, it is their right to discuss it, nothing in our policy will ever effect that fact.  This is even more obvious since, if I accept your opinions above, they do not even abide by their own policy.  Where is the sense in trying to craft our policy to prevent them from doing something we find odious, but is within their rights?  (Particularly if the feeling is they will not follow any policy anyways?).  Let me emphasize that my point is that a section discussing threats to wikiversity is not helpful, and my comment should not be misconstrued in other sections to mean that I have agreed/disagreed with anything in the above comments.  (I am just accepting it academically for the sake of discussion.) Thenub314 09:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "We perhaps can discuss policies" <-- I think Wikiversity needs a Blocking policy and a Deletion policy. "it is their right to discuss it" <-- True, but if such discussions take place then the Wikiversity community should be informed in a proper way. Thenub314, please note that a letter was sent the the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees seeking clarification about actions taken by Jimbo Wales at Wikiversity. That would have been a perfect opportunity for the Foundation to communicate with the Wikiversity community and explain their discussions about closing Wikiversity. However, there has never been a reply to the letter or any communication about the Board's discussions concerning the closure of Wikiversity. Where is the sense in trying to craft our policy to prevent them from doing something we find odious, but is within their rights? <-- Can you give an example of something we find odious, but is within their rights? "a section discussing threats to wikiversity is not helpful" <-- I don't agree. It has been possible for other Wikimedia project communities to defend themselves against unwise external intrusions. Wikiversity can do the same. --JWSchmidt 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

About your first sentence, that is great but has nothing to do with threats to WV made by members of the WMF, and belongs in some later section. I personally don't see any compelling reason for them to inform us about every conversation they have. It is there decisions, and reasons for those decisions, that should be clear. They should feel free to discuss amongst themselves. Perhaps they could tell us the decision was no, perhaps no decision as been made. Perhaps it was never even discussed. There is no reason to fault the Foundation failing to communicate, it is not clear there is anything to communicate.

Yes, I can example of something we find odious and is within their rights: closing Wikiversity.

How have other WMF wiki's defended themselves against threats made by the WMF about their closure?

On a personal note, could you please stop quoting and linking sentence fragments? It both makes your reply more difficult to read and takes parts of what is said out of context. If your linking to something elsewhere I can understand, even in another section on the page, but it is particularly distracting when there are multiple links to the same reply in one paragraph and the reply is the paragraph immediately preceding it. Thenub314 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thenub314, you wrote, "About your first sentence, that is great but has nothing to do with threats to WV made by members of the WMF, and belongs in some later section." However, I think a community that can defend itself will no longer be subjected to threats. Thenub314, I don't understand why you wrote, "I personally don't see any compelling reason for them to inform us about every conversation they have." Has anyone suggested that the WMF Board should tell us about every conversation they have? I was talking about something of vital importance to the Wikiversity community, the fact that we were told that the Board was discussing the termination of the Wikiversity project. I think the Board has an obligation to keep the Wikiversity community informed about something like that. Thenub314, you wrote, "There is no reason to fault the Foundation failing to communicate, it is not clear there is anything to communicate." However, the Wikiversity community was informed that the Board was discussing closure of Wikiversity. Such news has a very disruptive influence on a wiki community. Failure of the Board to follow up with some kind of clarification/communication is an on-going source of disruption. Such poor communication just drives people away from the project. Thenub314, you wrote,"Yes, I can example of something we find odious and is within their rights: closing Wikiversity." Some people think that if Wikiversity establishes new/better policies and procedures then there will be fewer threats to close Wikiversity. Thenub314, you wrote, "How have other WMF wiki's defended themselves against threats made by the WMF about their closure?" I said that other projects had defend themselves against unwise external intrusions. I'm not aware that any other project has been threatened with closure in the way that Wikiversity has. --JWSchmidt 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JWSchmidt, please provide an example of a situation where "other projects had defend themselves against unwise external intrusions." -- dark lama  17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a long tradition of limiting what Wikimedia functionaries from outside Wikipedia can do, for example, see this Wikipedia page. Another example is described in the Signpost. --JWSchmidt 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
Proposals for how to improve Wikiversity procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.

Some related proposals are on another page: see also: 8. Official policy on consensus, 9. Official policy on blocking
 * Rollback Policy Fix
 * Policy for IRC chat
 * Privacy Issues
 * Truth in Advertising
 * Vandalism
 * Page Deletion
 * CheckUser rules


 * There is another page for Policy development proposals‎

New Proposal
add you proposal here