Wikiversity talk:Community Review

Blocked user review
If this review is for discussing problems, is there any reason why a blocked user cannot ask for a review here? Or is there a procedure that e must follow? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton has been putting notices and comments all over Wikiversity, many of which I and evidently many others see as disruptive - so reverting his edits is not refusing a request for a review, but rather is a strategy for containing Moulton's disruption. We still need to document the run up to Moulton's block, and we still need to address some of Moulton's concerns - but we need to do so without playing 'games', as Moulton likes doing. Cormaggio talk 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your answer to be (b): there is a procedure that e should follow. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss WV IRC channels?
Is it fair and within bounds to bring up the banning and unbanning of people on IRC, here on Community Review? Emesee 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a separate issue to the wiki unblocks. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would be the best place to discuss blocking some one on #wikiversity and #wikiversity-en ? --LauraHale 20:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Something connected to Chat? JWSchmidt started something there when he was blocked on the channel. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess blocks from #wikiversity-en could be discussed at Community Review. #wikiversity is the Beta Wikiversity channel. Maybe BetaWikiversity:Wikiversity:Babel? -- dark lama  21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just think if you're blocked from Wikiversity, you should also be blocked from the IRC channels because I've seen one or two people who have used the channel to attack others because they had admin privileges removed or were blocked. I feel the same standards should apply to the IRC channel that apply to the wiki.  (I'm also of the camp that logging should be allowed and you should be allowed to freely share them.  There appear to me to be one or two people who use the culture of not sharing logs to get do things they wouldn't do on the wiki, and that these people are blatantly acting in bad faith.) --LauraHale 23:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Currently, both channels note in the topic that logging is going on. We don't currently have much in the way of policy regarding the channels, but currently they are both managed by Mike and me. --SB_Johnny talk 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Wikiversity doesn't have enough standards in place to begin with, but agree that there should be some standards that are true for both the wiki and for IRC. I think who decides the standards for the wiki seems fairly straight forward, English Wikiversity's Wiki Community. WMF hosts, owns, and operates the servers that the English Wikiversity wiki resides on. However I think who decides the standards for the IRC channels is not as straight forward. WMF does not host the IRC channels, assert ownership over them, or operate them. Anyone could start an IRC channel on any irc network for discussing English Wikiversity. Anyone that did so would need to have permission from the business or people that operate the network to do so, and be willing to agree to their terms of use and rules. The people that host and operate any IRC channel at any given time can change arbitrarily without warning or notice unless the owner's or operators of an irc network go to great pains to reduce the risk of that happening. I think the rules of the irc channels come down to the willingness of the operators of the irc channels to enforce the rules of the English Wikiversity where they don't contradict the rules of the network, and English Wikiversity's Wiki Community has no more say in who gets to operate or manage it than they do at facebook or twitter. -- dark lama  06:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Subpages would be a good idea
I'm not sure why it wasn't set up this way earlier, but shouldn't the topics on the review page be subpaged so that individual discussions can be closed when appropriate? I suppose we could do it after the fact, but of course we lose the edit histories when we do it that way. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We should probably also section the page better, because some of the threads are getting long. On an active page like this it is important to allow section edits without edit save collisions.  --mikeu talk 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Please weigh in with your opinions on whether or not the block should be kept or removed, and nothing else."
Folks, What happened?

SB Johnny wrote those words that appear in the title above in Community Review. Wikiversitians produced their opinions. Then SB Johnny suggested that the unblock be based on some conditions that he was initiating (which may be similar to respect people or other guidelines that wikiversitians are currently developing), because some wikiversitians have asked for it but most wikiversitians have said nothing else. Then he said, concerning Emesee's summary, "I consider this "condensation" to be a simple vote count, without taking any account of the subtleties involved in reaching a consensus." What happened? Johnny, I am very confused as to what your position is. And do you still believe that "the block itself is now causing disruption"? Best wishes, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes in a consensus discussion the original options don't fit the need of the community. In this case, there was a lot of misgivings expressed about unblocking, presumably because people were concerned that it would open the door for what happened leading up to the block, so I tried to provide a general guideline for JWSchmidt (and everyone else) to follow that would serve to avoid that. --SB_Johnny talk 10:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * IOW, the discussion before the "yes or no" had far too many conflated issues, so I asked for discussion of a more narrow scope so that we could start getting the first issue squared away. However, the responses made it clear that a "yes, but only if..." option was more generally favored. Insisting on a binary interpretation (vote count) when there was clearly a third way preferred by many runs contrary to how consensus works, and I don't want to support a decision made on that basis. Yes, I still feel the block is disruptive, but creating new disruption to undo it isn't a step in the right direction. --SB_Johnny talk 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think SB Johnny just pointed out one of the hardest things for admins to admit, across the wikis, and that is the potential for the block to be disruptive itself. Dzonatas 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Guideline
I would prefer no tag to the current "Guideline" tag, as I think it invites users to ignore the results of CR's. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the tag down. This page isn't a guideline, nor a policy. Probably not a process either, but rather a discussion forum where a certain kind of process takes place. We need a better language to describe things like this. --SB_Johnny talk 09:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that CQ considers such forums "Processes". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems so. He was also working on Process. Then there is the recently created process and maybe others.  I think we should be carefull about reclassifying the page after people have showed support for a particular version becuase it might get confusing if some supported it without the template and others with it.  Personally, I agree with the removal of guideline and support the page as a policy.  But, I am not too particular about what we call it, the content is the more important issue for me. --mikeu talk 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Community Review Process
The current Community Review has heightened my awareness of certain dysfunctional aspects, aspects that can be expected to reduce the effectiveness, the carefully deliberated view, the discovery of consensus, that should be a part of a high-level review like this.

1. Community Review should be preceded by lesser advisory process where possible, starting with attempts to directly resolve disputes.

2. A Community Review should never be started by just a single user. If a single user cannot find support, to sign off on the charges in the review, taking co-equal responsibility for them, it is a waste of time to discuss them before the whole community. This is, in fact, basic deliberative process (a motion requires a second before it can be debated, other than when a community is meeting as a "committee of the whole," which is never recommended for the actual making of decisions.

3. The charges are properly included in a section of their own, signed by the author. I'm suggesting that a co-signature should be required, to avoid the spectacle and disruption of an unsupported filing.

3. Given that the charges have their own privileged section (others should not edit within it), the response of the charged editor should also have a privileged section that only the charged editor may edit. Where a charged editor is also blocked, this section can be transcluded from a Talk page section, thus allowing a blocked editor to respond within the Community Review.

4. To encourage users to make a coherent statement rather than just to react to the comments of others, in a threaded discussion, individual users should be able to start their own Comment sections, which would be placed above the open discussion section. This also will avoid much edit conflict when discussion gets hot.

5. This is just a minimal starting description of what a more careful deliberative process could look like. The present process is easily disrupted, spinning off-track, thus it tends to lead to either no clear consensus, or some consensus close that isn't clearly rooted in what the community actually expressed, both of which can be harmful.

I intend to propose a tighter formalization of the CR process, along these lines. Consider how much mess might have been avoided if these proposed guidelines were in effect! --Abd 17:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 is suppose to already be true. Other attempts to directly resolve disputes are suppose to be done first with a link as proof, along with an explanation as to why the other attempts did not result in a resolution of the problem. -- dark lama  17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as we are so often seeing, what is "supposed to be true" is meaningless if there is no enforcement procedure. Enforcement procedure is what is often missing from current policy, based probably on an early naive assumption that if we discuss stuff, we can find consensus. It's actually true, but ... it requires what I'll call "facilitated discussion" under some circumstances. Straight, raw, undisciplined discussion just burns people out and the consensus found, if it it is any kind of consensus, is often thus quite defective and partial, representing only the view of those willing to dive into the messes that are created. I.e., those with the biggest axes to grind. --Abd 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People as a group decide what to enforce or not. When nobody did so here, that could mean that people find this an acceptable step. Could maybe also mean people would like to reduce the number of steps by making the custodian feedback page obsolete or something. -- dark lama  11:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Moulton and JWS matters, we've had 3 and a half years or so worth of discussion. So, there is no need to worry about "process" because we've gone through every single process. Furthermore, "review" is not enforcement. It is the opposite of enforcement - it is free discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "we've gone through every single process" <-- Every policy-violating process. Maybe it is time to try those processes that are prescribed in Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the best response to every possibility can be adequately prescribed by any possible set of rules? If so, what are those magical rules no human has ever yet managed to come up with? If not, then sometimes not following rules (especially those invented via "consensus") is what is best. Or are you deliberately insisting we follow a practice (blind obedience to rules) that you know can not work and thus are deliberately insisting we act in a self destructive way? The web is better with Wikimedia than without it. Please don't help those whose only goal is to "hasten the day". WAS 4.250 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WAS is correct. The best practices rarely can be reduced to a set of rules. In almost every case, the best practices call for functional protocols.  If you've studied Operations Research or Managerial Science or Cybernetics, you will appreciate that rule-based systems are too weak to express functional protocols for best practices.  —Moulton 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WAS, it doesn't even need a response like that. Simply put, my concerns about Jtneill were simply to show why I felt that he was overstepping and the recommendations were only to take a breath before jumping in, to be more patient, etc. The responses should reflect the ramification, but it seems that two people above like to act as if everything is an expedition to Mt Everest. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you stop attacking Jtneill? I know you have your agenda but it is fundamentally in conflict with the best interest of the community. Jtneill is an academic.  He brings with him institutional support for Wikiversity. This institutional support means a community of active contributors who create content, who are actively exploring how to use wikis and Wikiversity to do research, who think about best practices, who think about things like "What are the ethical practices that a university demands and how do we realize these on a wiki?" and "How can we do peer review on a wiki?"  These types of discussions may not always be happening on Wikiversity, but are often happening outside the wiki.  They are a result of institutional support from people like Jtneill.  (Jtneill also is connected to his real name, which further supports Wikiversity as a legitimate project as you can connect academics to real academic work taking place on a wiki.) As near as I can tell Ottava, you do not have institutional support on Wikiversity.  You are not representing a specific user.  You are not using your real name.  You aren't partaking in the type of conversations I'm referencig offline and working towards bringing offline solutions that will be actualized on Wikiversity.
 * Attacking academics doing that is counter productive towards what I see as the goals of Wikiversity. Your insistence on being right and seeing your vision actualize to the extent that you're willing to drive away the community, that you're willing to do away with institutional support from Australian universities suggests to me that you're fundamentally acting in bad faith as it applies to Wikiversity's goal on the whole and towards Wikiversity's ability to expand its community by getting academics to participate in the management of Wikiversity.
 * So please get over yourself. Stop attacking Jtneill.  Stop attacking academics.  Please stop acting in bad faith towards the Wikiversity community.  (And if JWS is an issue for you, perhaps we can solve this problem you have rather simply and ban you both to get the drama to stop.) --LauraHale 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Laura, did you know that when I first came to Wikiversity in the summer of 2008, it was to work on a project on Managerial Ethics? The point of the project was to introduce the fundamentals of ethics, to counterbalance the corrupt practices that had begun to undermine the governance of WMF-sponsored projects. Jimbo came into Wikiversity and declared that the academic study of ethical best practices was "beyond the scope" of the project. He threatened to shut WV down if we continued to study the fundamentals of managerial ethics. It was a low point in the history of Wikiversity.  —Moulton 20:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Moulton: I was not aware of that. When I've chatted with WMF employees during the past 9 months or so, they have all reaffirmed a commitment to keeping Wikiversity going, telling me that Wikiversity won't be closed or threatened with closure as a result of something like Jimbo's actions again.  I'm keen to take them at their word.  Given that, I think it is fully time to explore that. From the Australian academics I've talked to who are either already on Wikiversity but aren't participating in the process OR who use wikiEducator and are not keen to use Wikiversity, the lack of ethical practices and the lack of methodology requirements are two big hindrances to getting them involved.
 * One of the things that came out of RecentChangesCamp was an acknowledgement of this problem. I think a few of us will be working towards this goal in the future.  Some of this may not be that visible because there are behind the scenes conversations inside our institutions regarding how this need to be done with that institutional perspective in mind.  (And academic schedules differ from wiki/social media schedules.)
 * The problem down here to a degree may be a matter of perspective. My guess is that there is a feeling of neglect.  The foundation will send their employees out to talk to MIT and Harvard, to talk to American and Canadian institutions that don't have the staff and educational investment with Wikiversity that Australian universities have tried to adopt.  WMF appears a bit American centric in a way that is counter productive, in terms of Wikiversity and using wikis educationally, to Wikiversity as they aren't embracing the core user base.  By having universities that use Wikiversities, it sells Wikiversity. (In startup circles, it is an early adopter method.  You make the early adopters your sales people.)  There are flaws (ethical practices, methodologies) that until addresses will mean others won't adopt.  Satisfy the adopters first.  (And in this case, a lot of the adopters are in Australia.) --LauraHale 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time (late in 2008), many members of the regular community here were very much afraid that Jimbo had the raw political power to make good on his threat to shut down Wikiversity. But that was then.  This is now.  Today, I don't think anyone seriously worries about Jimbo personally shutting down Wikiversity.  Nor do I think there remains any serious impediment for the academic community here to resume work on a genuine code of ethics, suitable for an authentic learning community.  What threatens Wikiversity today is the excessive internal political drama that arose in the aftermath of the Second Coming of Jimbo, when he tried the same ham-handed tactic again, and was decisively beaten back.  In the process of beating Jimbo back on the occasion of his second appearance here, the site became overly politicized and lost much of its quiet academic demeanor.  What's needed now is for the community here to reassert its academic character by adopting a Community Agreement that includes a scholarly code of ethics, and a self-governance model that includes a functional and dignified dispute resolution process.  To my mind this is the sine qua non without which Wikiversity cannot expect to fulfill its chartered mission.  —Moulton 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As some one who is feels largely like an outsider (I'm here because of institutional investments. I love WMF but I prefer to fork when things don't work for me.  See Fan History.), it feels like there are three populations on Wikiversity: 1) Academics who are busy doing their own thing, trying to adhere to what was probably visualized as Wikiversity's original mission, 2) People who are completely hung up on the WMF and who probably got their butts kicked on Wikipedia and fled to Wikiversity in order to still get the reflected glory of WMF [and who refuse to fork] and who are fundamentally disruptive to Wikiversity's original mission, 3) The admins who followed the banned users from EN-WP or En-WB to EN-WV, who assumed that Wikiversity should be run like Wikipedia.  These three groups have fundamental conflicts.  It feels like most of what we see is a result of groups 2 and 3 being in conflict continually while group 1 tries to ignore it.
 * I think groups 2 and 3 need to be sidelined more, or have their energies channeled towards helping group 1. IF they can't, ban them for lack of good faith.  (And if you say that you are okay with everyone leaving Wikiversity so long as the policy existing is yours or you say that community should be subverted to the goal of creating quality content, the assumption should be you're operating in bad faith.)
 * Long way of saying, I agree. The goals of Wikiversity at this time should be: "reassert its academic character by adopting a Community Agreement that includes a scholarly code of ethics, and a self-governance model that includes a functional and dignified dispute resolution process."  --LauraHale 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Can you stop attacking Jtneill?" Lolwut? That post was from August of 2010. That was over 5 months ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also - "You aren't partaking in the type of conversations I'm referencig offline and working towards bringing offline solutions that will be actualized on Wikiversity." Then you don't know anything at all. I've worked with far more institutions and professors than Jtneill has. And yes, I do use my real name here. I also have quite a bit of work that is hosted here that is used in real classrooms. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WAS 4.250, those are some interesting questions. "possible set of rules" <-- Here is one possible set of rules: Read Approved Wikiversity project proposal then click the edit button. Of course, some people did click "edit" and made edits that disrupted the Wikiversity Mission. So there needed to be a rule about how to deal with people who misused the "edit" button. Custodianship was created and things worked well for two years. Then a few Wikipedians decided they could ignore Wikiversity's rules and impose a rule from another website and do so in a way that violated Wikiversity policy, and do so as part of a misguided effort to protect people at Wikipedia who had violated Wikipedia policy. We can ask, what was "the best response" to the disruptive Wikipedians? I doubt if what happened in 2008 was the best response, but the problems from 2008 still linger, so we can ask, what is the best response today? I have made some suggestions that follow from identifying a problem and then trying to put in place a system for dealing with the problem. I don't believe in "magical rules", but I prefer a community with rules over one where a few misguided individuals disrupt the community by ignoring the existing rules and imposing destructive rules from another community. --JWSchmidt 13:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A rule isn't a rule if only a few people support the rule. People were already beginning to question rules supported by only one or a few people before people from Wikipedia came to Wikiversity. If you think people should follow the existing rules, you should focus your energy on explaining why the Wikiversity community should consider the existing rules good rules to follow instead of criticizing people for not following them. The Wikiversity community makes the rules, can change the rules, and can ignore them. It is up to the people that believe the existing rules must be followed to explain and justify why when rules are ignored. I believe each time a rule is enforced, questioned, or ignored that a community's commitment and true expectations are put to the test. I think if most people enforce a rule than a community is committed and truly expects a rule to be followed. I think if most people question or ignore a rule than a community is not committed and does not truly expect a rule to be followed. -- dark lama  14:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "only a few people support the rule" <-- Darklama, please list your favorite example of such a rule that few people support so we can discuss it. "criticizing people for not following them" <-- Darklama, what I criticize is actions that damage the Wikiversity community and that deflect Wikiversity from its Mission. In many cases that damage is caused by a few misguided people who ignore existing Wikiversity policy and who try to impose destructive methods imported from other websites. Darklama, how do your violations of Wikiversity policy and your disruption of the community chat channel by misuse of channel operator tools promote the Wikiversity Mission? Darklama, why don't you respond to feedback about your performance as a Custodian? --JWSchmidt 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "if most people enforce a rule" <-- Darklama, please list your favorite example of such a rule that has been enforced by most people. Darklama, under conditions where Wikiversity community members are harassed by sockpuppets from Wikipedia, blocked and banned in violation of Wikiversity policy, subjected to emergency desysop in violation of Wikiversity policy, when the very existence of Wikiversity is threatened, when most of the community is driven away by such abuse of power, and when this vast disruption of Wikiversity is perpetuated by a few rogue sysops, under these conditions of threat and intimidation how do you identify community consensus? Can there be consensus for anything that damages the Wikiversity community and deflects Wikiversity from its Mission? --JWSchmidt 15:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have listed before examples of rules that few people support, to keep doing so again distracts from Wikiversity's mission. I believe everyone that has participated so far in discussions with you over the past 2 years is well aware that you think "ignoring rules damages the Wikiversity community" and "the Wikiversity community is damaged by ignoring rules". To continue to bring the same argument up distracts from Wikiversity's mission. You decided by yourself what most of the rules should be that you say damage the Wikiversity community by ignoring them. This has been discussed before over the past 2 years as well and to continue to do so distracts from Wikiversity's mission. Please explain how "the very existence of Wikiversity is threatened" when blocks and bans are used, and when people are desysoped. What statistics do you have to support your claim that "most of the community is driven away"? I don't agree with your claims of bad block and bans, policy violations, and abuse of power, and I have already explained why elsewhere. For me to continue to explain why distracts from Wikiversity's mission. Explaining why you believe certain rules are needed and should be followed would be a change of pace that might actually help to resolve issues. Explaining why you believe certain rules support the Wikiversity mission would also be a change of pace that might actually help to resolve issues. -- dark lama  15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, I agree with JWS that much, if not most, of the community is driven away, but not by blocks, per se, but by extensive and continued and unresolved controversy over them and other custodial and editorial actions. Further, given what I've seen from before and from recent events, I cannot in good faith recommend Wikiversity to real educators and academics, particularly those involved in "alternative education" or what my fiance -- one of these -- calls "transformative education." If they happened to look at the Colloquium or Community Review or any of a number of other pages, they would simply go away, and I'd have egg all over my face from recommending this place. Because I believe that the participation of these people would be mutually valuable, if disputes can be resolved instead of just making the carpet lumpy by sweeping them under it, if dispute resolution process becomes clear and efficient, then I'd see Wikiversity as experiencing a growth period like it has never seen.
 * I have supported the proposed block of JWS, not because I want to exclude his criticism, but because I actually want to include it, but make it effective for resolving disputes. For that to happen his criticism must become disciplined, focused into designated, and probably facilitated, due process. He is not apparently willing or able to do this on his own (he claims to not understand much of what I write, and what he does think he understands, from his responses, he also doesn't appear to me to understand), and therefore he needs assistance, and a mentor, which could easily be a possible resolution of a block, and someone he trusts could do this. I have explained what you just explained to JWS, over and over, and he either doesn't get it, or his plan is to take the easy path: continue disruption until the community gets tired of it and fixes the problem. That, unfortunately, is a bankrupt approach, and easily becomes almost purely negative, causing his criticisms, some of which are quite spot-on, to be neglected. This is how on-line communities have functioned for as long as I've watched and participated them, which is well over twenty years. What looks like hysterical protest will be radically discounted by most readers, who won't bother to check the evidence. It used to drive me nuts, because people would make snap judgments, completely ignoring actual evidence presented. There are ways to move beyond this, and repeating massive objection, over and over, is not one of them. It never works. --Abd 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think some people are driven away by extensive and continued unresolved disputes. However there is some graphical statistics that suggest that English Wikiversity is still growing, which suggestions most people are not paying attention to the unresolved disputes. I have continued to encourage people to contribute as well, while suggesting they focus on their learning projects and stay away from these disputes. I also agree with you Abd that there are ways to move beyond this, and that repeating objections over and over is not one of them. My support of a block, also has nothing to do with wanting to exclude criticism. I agree JWS's criticism must become disciplined, focused, and help to effectively facilitate a resolution. I have not seen that happen over the past 2 years, and I think JWS cannot find a mentor that he will listen to and can help him, which is why I support a block. -- dark lama  18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Darklama. There is no conflict between the two positions, as long as the close of a block discussion is by a neutral custodian, or, if too many custodians are involved, by someone at least willing to negotiate in an ongoing fashion on behalf of the community, and not just as a representative of some "block" faction. If JWSchmidt cannot find a mentor, that ices it, doesn't it? With a mentor, he could be subject to a topic ban that would be negotiated between him, the mentor, and the closing custodian, who is there to ensure that the community's concerns are respected. The point would be to negotiate specific rules governing his behavior that he can sign on to, rather than them being unilaterally imposed. If he's not willing to negotiate (or not able to negotiate, say, for personal emotional reasons or some long-term plan or whatever, it doesn't matter what the reason is) that, again, ices it. Again, if he agrees to a ban but is unable to keep within it, the terms can be modified should they prove onerous and harmful, or he would be blocked. There is no loss from trying, other than the waste of time of a mentor, which is voluntary. As is clear, blocked editors can still make contributions to Wikiversity, it cannot be prevented, but they are then subject to reversion in a way that minimizes disruption, while still allowing them to be seen, and I'll be proposing changes to policy that will make this clear, even though it is already true through wiki common law. --Abd 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have listed before examples of rules that few people support" <-- Darklama, that is an interesting claim that needs to be critically examined. If you will not now, here in this discussion, link to an example of a rule that few people support, then we can all safely ignore your claim that such rules exist. "To continue to bring the same argument up distracts from Wikiversity's mission." <-- Darklama, how does discussing problems that damage the Wikiversity community distract from Wikiversity's mission? "You decided by yourself what most of the rules should be" <-- Darklama, please identify one rule that I decided on by myself so that we can discuss it. Please explain how "the very existence of Wikiversity is threatened" when blocks and bans are used, and when people are desysoped. <-- Darklama, I linked to some specific threats to Wikiversity, but there have been others, and I agree that bad blocks disrupt Wikiversity and when people are blocked and desysoped in violation of policy those abuses of power intimidate community members and drive them away from the project. Darklama, have you participated in discussions at a "back channel" (possibly an invite-only IRC chat channel) where threats made against the existence of Wikiversity were discussed in 2008? What statistics do you have to support your claim that "most of the community is driven away"? <-- I have no statistics, but we could easily count the Custodians who have resigned in protest or been desysoped in violation to Wikiversity policy and Wikiversity community members who have been subjected to blocks and bans in violation of Wikiversity policy. I previously proposed a project that could begin to collect data about how people have responded to the disruptions of Wikiversity that began in 2008. "Explaining why you believe certain rules support the Wikiversity mission would also be a change of pace that might actually help to resolve issues." <-- Darklama, identify the rule that you are most puzzled by and we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have supported the proposed block of JWS, not because I want to exclude his criticism, but because I actually want to include it" <-- Abd, maybe you can explain the idea that blocking someone from editing is the way to promote discussion. "he claims to not understand much of what I write" <-- Abd, for example, I don't understand how blocking someone is a way to include their criticisms in community discussions. "what he does think he understands, from his responses, he also doesn't appear to me to understand" <-- Abd, please identify your favorite example of what I don't appear to understand so we can discuss it and compare your understanding to mine. "the easy path: continue disruption" <-- Abd, please identify the best example of what you view as disruption so that we can discuss it. "hysterical protest" <-- Abd, please identify the best example of "hysterical protest" so that we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is analogous to what was once said to me on Wikipedia as an answer to a question like that. Hysterical protests, for the most part.. What did I do? File a complaint for incivility? No, I responded within policy and was able to move on, in some cases having actually converted some of those complaining to a different view, and I was able to accomplish a great deal as to change for the better. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia problem is huge. It might be more manageable here.


 * Seriously, this is absolutely not the place for charges of disruption to be proven. There is Wikiversity/Community Review/JWSchmidt for that. That you would even think that the piles of evidence you request should be given here is, however, just another sign of the problem. The topic here is Community Review process, not JWSchmidt behavior. I'm considering collapsing this whole diversion, it simply confuses the issue. That, again, is an example of the damage done by you, JW. If we do not respond, you complain about lack of response. And if we do respond, Wikiversity discussions go off the rails. --Abd 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "must become disciplined" <-- Darklama, please explain what you mean by "become disciplined". "find a mentor" <-- Darklama, who do you suggest as a mentor? Maybe your mentor who said, "Darklama has made it clear to me that he will not be active as a Custodian outside of helping us with technical issues" and who told me, "just go fuck yourself and go away". Darklama, why are your mentor, you and a few others allowed to violate the civility policy? --JWSchmidt 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you want a mentor who had told you to "just go fuck yourself and go away?" Apparently, rather than considering a very sober and quite open and fair proposal, that would, in fact, leave you free to effectively criticize, eliminating only the useless merry-go-round you have been on for two years, you would rather rehearse endlessly that someone once said some bad words to you. The mentorship would be a free agreement between you and an editor with sufficient respect in the community that a closing custodian would accept the mentorship and unblock. That lack of real consideration is not functional, JWS, and is precisely what could result in a topic ban or block, and, I predict, if you do not change course, it will happen sooner or later. Nobody, should be allowed to violate civility policy, though a violation should generally be on-wiki. People might say anything in a bar, given the mood of the place. IRC, as a hot medium, is not subject to the same restrictions as the wiki. (Which is one reason why I oppose using IRC as if it were part of Wikiversity, it is little more than a local bar where people may informally meet and discuss stuff, no binding decisions should ever be made there.) I think that few here have more credentials in opposing incivility, I lost my probationary custodianship because I warned and blocked my mentor, over clear incivility and a clear and willful disregard of the warning. You opposed that. You'd rather see all disputes handled by "discussion," but incivility poisons discussion, and more discussion, once it has become uncivil, and absent warning/blocking, incivility leads to more incivility, not to resolution, unless there is a massive community participating, and even then it's not likely. We don't have those conditions. You have set up a trap from which you and Wikiversity cannot escape, until someone cuts the Gordian knot. --Abd 21:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did finally look up that "go fuck yourself" comment. JWS has misrepresented it, exaggerating its nature. He was clearly angry at the time, and what he wrote was this:
 * Wikiversity is bigger than you, me, or for that matter anyone else. Stop personalizing things. Stop worrying about people's agendas. Stop worrying about your agenda. If you have something in particular that you'd like to learn/teach/research, do the work. If you have a problem with me, cormaggio, or anyone else, bring it up on Wikiversity:Community Review. If the only thing you have to offer is your vision, offer it, but don't expect everyone to agree with it.


 * You seem to have taken the stance that people are either with you or they're against Wikiversity. No matter how firmly you believe that, it's just not true. Stop demonizing, and start talking. Or don't. You've pretty much lost any credibility with me... I'm not alone in feeling that way, and the more you put your agenda above the good of the project, the more other people will feel the same.


 * You've got a lot of good energy and ideas (or at least you used to). Ditch the hate, embrace the promise. Or just go fuck yourself and go away... at this point I don't care. I really am that disappointed, but I'm starting to get over it now. --SB_Johnny talk 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) (full discussion is at JWSchmidt_go_fuck_yourself, i.e., JWS is memorializing this incivility two years later. --Abd 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)) 
 * JWS's response to this is typical of much comment that I've seen from him. He completely ignores the good faith advice that SBJ apparently started to write with, and focuses in on what he mentions at the end, to which he takes great offense, and is still holding on to two years later. SBJ did not tell JWS to "go fuck [himself]," as implied by his comments about it. He offered JWS a choice. It was still uncivil, and Cormaggio properly warned him about that. There was also a discussion of this on SB_Johnny's talk page. I concur with Hillegentleman's comment there, but ... is it more uncivil to say, in effect, "you are trying to wreck Wikiversity" than "stop or go fuck yourself."? Just a question! My opinion is that both would be uncivil, and both, if repeated after warning, would be what HG called "bookable offenses." There was later discussion at . I do not see that SB_Johnny repeated the incivility after being warned, though he waffled a bit about the incivility of it. We don't block people for waffling, nor for even open disagreement with a warning. Just for ignoring one. But as to JWS .... it's still going on, two years later. --Abd 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I also think that we have to cut the Gordian Knot ourselves on our own. Don't rely on JWS to cut it. I think the only solution at this point is to either not respond at all to comments JWS repeats, or respond with a comment like "I will not be repeating this discussion again." -- dark lama  05:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New discussion
I'd like to restart this discussion on the process that is used for CR. I'm not sure if the above suggestions would improve the situtation, but I do think we are a point where we need to revisit how CR is conducted in practive. My main concern is that CR has been become disorganized, difficult to follow and there are discussions on the same topic that are scattered over multiple pages.

For example, Community Review/Jtneill 2 was opened, closed, then reopened and is currently not even linked from the main WV:CR page. The discussion on SB_Johnny has been brought up at Steward requests on meta, and then at Requests for comment/SB Johnny while there is a concurrent discussion going on locally at Community Review/SB Johnny. The Community Review/Abd page contains a subsection on Community_Review/Abd which, while it is related to the situation regarding the probationary custodianship of abd, is not related to abd as a user nor is it related to the stated intent at the top of the review of abd. As a minor nitpick the section numbering at WV:CR confuses the relationship between the subsections and the reviews that they are part of. None of the current reviews are linked from site notice, and quite frankly I don't think they should be until the issues that are the subject of these reviews gets more coherently organized. So many of these reviews have been opened in such a short period of time that it is likely very difficult for the majority of contributers to even keep track of what discussions they should follow.

There is also a great deal of incivility such as: "He is indeed a fucking charlatan", "is a liar, tendentious and vengeful" and name calling such as "Wikiversity Drama Queens"  and I won't even try to count the multiple violations of WV:AGF. These statements are not conducive to resolving the issues that face our community and have no place in a community review.

Please look over the suggestions that have been made previously or propose new ideas on how we can more rationaly discuss and resolve issues through the community review process. Also, focus on ways that we can refine our methods for handling reviews without mentioning specific users. There are already plenty of open discussion threads where that is occuring and I'd like to keep this subsection strictly for policy improvement ideas. --mikeu talk 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. I think the most pressing thing to accomplish is to keep any given discussion confined to one place. That will (1) significantly reduce the confusion, as well as, perhaps more than proportionately, (2) the amount of incivility, as the latter is often accompanying a link from one location to another ('look what they did there!'). It will also (3) limit the dominance of the most verbose participator and thereby further diminish irritation. Guido den Broeder 18:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that CR could benefit from describing how discussions are to be organized, what needs to happen first before discussions go live so to speak, keeping distinct discussions separate, and keeping other discussions in one place. I think incivility and violations of WV:AGF are best addressed by updating the civility and WV:AGF pages and by having enough people unwilling to allow incivility and violations of WV:AGF to happen without consequences. -- dark lama  20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel the opposite of "without consequences." I see the problem as people are forgetting that you deal with incivility first by ignoring it. Instead, people want to apply the harshest consequences after baiting others into incivility in order to "beat" their opponent instead of discussing. True incivility is using weapons to harm another instead of discussing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Irony.... Dinsdale 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring incivility is not in policy. Specific suggestions like do not answer offensive comments are. I feel the opposite. I think the policy should explicitly say not to ignore incivility. Ignoring incivility is exactly what allows resentment to build up, and with time for resentment to turn into blind hostility. -- dark lama  15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Darklama. Incivility is an impediment to progress in resolving issues and a distraction from working towards our goals as a learning community. --mikeu talk 15:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The single most egregious act of incivility is to block a fellow scholar whose identity and good faith is not in doubt. This abhorrent practice began here when Jimbo foolishly introjected it into Wikiversity back in 2008, and the community has never fully recovered from that disruptive and unwise exemplar.  —Moulton 16:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least for now, I think it could be a helpful step to list all current reviews at Community_Review (including relevant ones at meta) and to not transclude current reviews at WV:CR. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Community Review of Departures from the Policy on Biographical Characterizations of Living People
The protocols for initiating Community Reviews is a bit up in the air at the moment, so I would like some feedback on initiating one or more such Community Reviews at this time, with respect to possible departures from the official policy regarding the publication of biographical characterizations of identifiable living persons.

Now I would like to take the Privacy Policy on a test drive to find out whether this community is willing to allow me to properly challenge instances of false and defamatory personal characterizations, whether originated here, or on other WMF-sponsored projects, and to hold authors personally responsible and accountable, and not entitled to anonymity, per the language found in the official policy regarding the publication of biographical characterizations of identifiable living persons.

I would also like to address the related problem of individuals operating with multiple identities. Why, for example, should Paul Mitchell have five voices, one as FeloniousMonk, one as Odd nature, one as Centaur of Attention, one as Blogger "Skip" and one as "Jamie F." writing letters to the editor?

What is the current recommended procedure for initiating such reviews?

Moulton 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At the English language Wikipedia, there exists an elected Arbitration Committee ("Arbcom") to make community decisions regarding behavior issues (but is not authorized to make content decisions) when existing community resolution processes fail. Issues that by their nature are best discussed in private fall in this category; so such a question would be handled by a "private" e-mail to Arbcom. The problematic closed nature of such proceedings needs to be weighed against the problematic disclosures necessitated by a fully open proceeding. Wikiversity lacks any such governance model. When Wikipedia was at this stage, it was shepherded by Jimbo while governance rules, processes and organs were organized. It will be interesting to see how Wikiversity handles this stage of organizing governance processes. WAS 4.250 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)