Wikiversity:Colloquium

Start your discussion here Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles. Sign your posts with   ~~~~ Welcome Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking, check the general information at: What is Wikiversity? Who are Wikiversity participants? Wikiversity Introduction MediaWiki software questions Wikiversity: Chat | Mailing list | X

Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

RSS

"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." — Benjamin N. Cardozo (discuss)

On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 21 days old.

Wikimania Scholarships

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

• Scholarships
• Scholarships FAQ

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

Making Technical Wikiversity Topics Better Teaching Tools by Utilizing the Skills of a Hyper-Multidisciplinary Team

Moved to Improving Technical Topics At Wikiversity, with discussion on the discussion page.

Current Student Volunteer Campaign

Hi all,

It seems to me that the best way to improve (and add to) the content on WikiVersity is to have a few students currently enrolled in "real life" versions of the courses we are offering work under a mentor as they go along. It is incredibly time consuming to produce/improve content in parallel with a post-college life. However, during an "in-college" life, this exercise is mutually beneficial - generating material is one of the best ways to help the student really learn the material (if you can't explain it, you don't know it!), prepare for exams, etc. At the same time, they could let WikiVersity know which topics were explained unsatisfactorily, which topics could have benefited from additional images, etc.

My suggestion would be for WikiVersity to reach out to universities calling for this type of volunteer. It seems to me that it would only take one or two iterations (less than a year!) to produce some incredible material.

Daviddoria 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Students enrolled in brick and mortar universities are already contributing here, and people are already reaching out to brick and mortar universities. The mentor concept already exists, just needs people to do it. Take a look at my user page for an example. -- darklama  16:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying it should be formalized more than it is. I'd like to see a page that says "A, B, and C are currently students taking Physics I and contributing to the content of this page. Click here if you are also taking Physics I and would like to help (maybe 1-4 hours /week). Click here to mentor a student.". Darklama - I see on your user page that you are a "C Progamming Mentor", but is there a list of your students? Which pages are the working on? Which classes are they currently taking? Daviddoria 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some pages already include a list of participants that wish to study the subject and wish to help contribute to works on the subject. My main goal with the mentor system is to clearly identify people willing to answer questions about a subject and than to list them on related pages so students can find them. Right now it is somewhat common for people to turn to custodians for help for site-related issues, and this is sort of an extension of that where people can know who they might be able to turn to find answers for their other questions. -- darklama  23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Although the issue is not new and contributions from "real" schools occasionally appear on the site, it would be good to know how many people (i.e. teachers/students) contributed to WV as a part of a "real" class. Page listing these, maybe with some description and put it to a prominent place (main page?) would help to advertise the possibility and WV in general. --Gbaor 10:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We have long had this page: Wikiversity:School and university projects. We have also long had a problem with the main page: rather than address the critical needs facing Wikiversity the main page is a silly "let's pretend we are Wikipedia" page. --JWSchmidt 14:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Campus ambassadors and the Public Policy Initiative

The PPI is a Foundation-sponsored project (supported by a dedicated grant) to organize knowledge about public policy topics, from university courses around the world. It is organizing campus ambassadors who can help profs learn how to effectively integrate their classes into Wikimedia projects and vice-versa.

This is one good place to start building a body of student volunteers. Most of the ambassadors will be students... it may be worth combining these ideas with a discussion with Annie and Pete who are organizing that part of the PPI - and with the initial ambassadors that are so discovered. –SJ+ 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I already talked to various people on WMF staff who were approved as part of that process and they said they want to devote all efforts to Wikipedia and wont be putting any effort towards other projects for now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to create a Cite namespace

KYPark wants to create a namespace (Cite) that has reference entries that could be used on multiple pages as a template. I will let him explain it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

KYPark

Prompted by User talk:KYPark#Warning, may I cordially ask the WV community members concerned to draw a consensus on the creation of the Cite: namespace, each of whose pages will essentially contain the citation or bibliographic record on a document? For further information, please refer to User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima, which keeps evolving, as everything ever evolves, I guess, whether naturally or culturally. BTW, I'm just a newcomer to WV, unaware of its culture and the right way I have to behave in it. Please do me lots of favor and justice. Thank you. --KYPark 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Adambro

As it stands, from reading the discussions that took place at User talk:Ottava Rima, I'm yet to be persuaded of the value of a cite namespace. I think it would create a lot of work for not a lot of benefit. Each reference would need another page whilst many sources will only ever be used in one page. Spreading content across pages unfortunately creates more targets for vandals and so more pages that need to be watched and potentially requiring protection. I think the current system of citing sources is satisfactory. Adambro 07:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: a lot of work -- I expect academics would do a lot of it to help themselves. kk :-) --KYPark 09:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: many sources will only ever be used in one page -- WV need not bother having such trivial sources or pages. The greater repetition or redundancy, the greater satisfaction. Hence the first-thing-first principle. --KYPark 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: vandalism -- The nature of citations or bibliographic records is so objective that sane vandals would not bother them. --KYPark 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"sane vandals" sounds like a good example of an oxymoron. Adambro 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed in a sense. But sadly, to tell the truth, I've been so often made to feel like one here (I can't exactly figure out where), though I may be one in no way. Could you prove I'm insane anyway so far? I hope not, even though I've been treated as such too often here, not in WV. That is to say, "sane vandals" is too uneasy a term for you to use definitely. I guess there are lots of "sane vandals" suffering a lot unjustly by name of vandalism, as pagans suffers by name of anti-christianity in the West. --KYPark 10:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

I could see some merit if there was a Commons like project for reference entries that would allow one reference to be used in thousands of pages, however, I honestly don't feel that even in such high user that having a page dedicated to one sentence that is easily copied and pasted is worth while. On a much smaller scope (i.e. just Wikiversity), I see even less of a point. I have created hundreds of pages that use references, and I find copying and pasting easy. Templates, in general, take up a lot of space and room for little gain. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Recall that each page will essentially contain the citation or bibliographic record on a document, which may be called the citational, transclusive or onlyinclude content that will be nested between the beginning and ending onlyinclude tags.

This essential content may well be compared to the tip of an iceberg, that is, the explicit, superficial, minimum-essential part of the whole page. That is, there is the massive, non-transclusive content or added value, which may be compared to the huge submerged mass of the iceberg. It should be pre-determined which features of a document should be added to the tip. The User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima#Additional contents may be taken into account.

Simply, such a Cite page could serve as a notepad, as it were, for learning and annotating anything from a scholarly document, whether a book, journal article, or whatever formal documentation. It may be regarded as a grass-roots or bottom-up building block of scholarship, whether research or learning, based on scholarly documentation. Such was the common idea of most hypertext prioneers, including Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, and Tim Berners-Lee in particular.

In a sense, most WP and WV articles are a top-down digest or synthesis of various scholarly documents, each of which in turn is such a one. Then, scholarship may well be said to begin with a web of grass-roots or source documents, which may be embodied as a Cite namespace!

--KYPark 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checking in briefly with this idea. I put some references on their own page, then transclude them e.g., Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/Howell/2010 - what links here. What advantage would there for be for locating something like this in a separate namespace? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the argument is that it helps to keep all references well organized and you know that they are being used as references. -- darklama  12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing, Jtneill! You've been already transcluding citations, though perhaps less easily or less plausibly than using the proposed Cite namespace. Your hierarchical and project-oriented way looks too special and hard for any editor to locate citations, I fear. Now my proposal seems to have been deliberately made for an easy alternative to your way of controlling citations. A definitely easy way would facilitate the weaving and other controls of citations. Please go to:

• Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks#SPSS manual to notice the links I've added in front, and
• Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008#Critiques to be advised of the possible extension of citational pages, whether yours or mine, toward the additional contents or features beyond the mere transclusion of a citation. Also note the above page could be very simply named Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 for easy location and use!

--KYPark (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What if jtneil decided to add additional citations by Allen & Bennett from 2008? Where would they be located? The page name seems to severely limit the number of possible citations. -- darklama  11:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recall Cite:Vannevar Bush 1945 AWM where the suffix "AWM" stands for "As We May Think," the article of Atlantic Monthly 176 (July 1945), pp. 101-108. Books, eg, Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 are more likely to do without such a suffix. Along with this author-year naming convention, we might also attempt to do with Cite:As We May Think, Cite:World Brain, etc., depending on their celebrity.

--KYPark (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, partly in response to Ottava's comment concerning a Commons namespace for citational transclusion to sister projects, WV should not be adversely affected to have a Cite namespace and make its entry easier as much as the transclusion from the Commons entry. And, any WMF community members concerned may read this Colloquium and preceding discussions first and perhaps invite me there.

--KYPark (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill

Thanks for the ideas and explanation KYPark. Maybe you could create some citations starting with Cite: as a demo. Would they need to be created in a namespace? Or could such pages just be named Cite: (without it being a namespace)? I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea - especually as I transclude some commonly-used references such as textbook references within a course. I do tend to like in that case that the transcluded references are within the sub-folder structure - but the final reference could still sit within Cite: and be transcluded from there. But I am doubtful that such a namespace would be used very much. Has this been proposed and discussed elsewhere on the sister projects e.g., Wikipedia? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WV is the first WMF project to which I proposed this new grass-roots documentary namespace, from which, it seems to me, WV would benefit most from the researcher's, teacher's and learner's perspectives. Meanwhile, such a documentary system is not really new without but quite implausible so far, I fear. The w:CiteSeer and the w:ACM Portal are limited to computer science and too automated. The Google is developing a sort. This mundane state of the art is as far as my knowledge goes. I would not deny that my proposal may be worth an independent WMF project, but make it simple. as I see simple is beautiful!

Suppose you passionately take notes on cards, as old scholars and students used to do. There you put down the source at the end, as well as a passage, quotation or annotation, tediously as many times as the number of notecards you make from the same source document. With the corresponding Cite page established once and for all, however, anyone could do without this tedious repetition, and that much more easily on Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 than Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008.

Quotation is selection. Also consider how to select a specific notecard from the messy mass. (Also consider how to find your car out of the huge car park after you've forgot the parking location.) The celebrated hypertext pioneer w:Vannevar Bush (1945) took these two kinds of selection very seriously, as he used the term more than twenty times in his 8-page article! Read at least the first 4 paragraphs of the section 6 there to understand his motivation. He named his ideal machine the w:memex that would free you from that messy mass.

It took exactly three decades for many people to begin to take his ideal very seriously. Since 1975, cognitive science began to emerge to study the hypertext-wise w:mind map, w:cognitive map, w:conceptual map, w:mental model, and many other parodies. Bush (1945) "As We May Think" was to suggest that hypertext is not so much grouped and selected hierarchically as associatively as the way we may think, hence the title. Associationism, behaviorism, experientialism, contextualism, social constructivism, and the like were merging into a revolutionary power against rationalist nativism or innatism.

Soon a variety of hypertext systems were mushrooming, including w:Enquire (1980) and w:Guide (hypertext) (1982) from the UK. The development at the University of Maryland is highly remarkable in the US, resulting in w:The Interactive Encyclopedia System (1983) and w:NoteCards (1984), 3 years earlier than the celebrated w:HyperCard (1987) of Apple Computer. WP and WV pages are (like) such cards; the namespace is simply the card box, deck or cabinet.

In the beginning, there was a namespace in WP, now called the main namespace, where all the main pages are parked, located or "created equal" rather than levelled "down from subclass to subclass" (in terms of Bush 1945) or from subpages to subpages in WV parlance. Now all WMF projects have essentially one main namespace and some extra namespaces marked by a colon, such as Wikiversity, School, Topic, etc. of WV, in addition to User, Talk, Category, Template, etc. in common. Each is quite homogeneous in kind. The Cite would be another for the reference kind.

Pages parked equal in the main namespace should be marked or named proper or unique, avoiding overlapping. Then anyone can be very easily selected by virtue of its proper name, and you need not go up and down the ladder of subdivisions such as Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008.

Instead of such a long hierarchy, you could simply have Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 in the proposed Cite namespace, or even more simply Allen & Bennett 2008 in the main namespace. The simpler the better. Then why the Cite namespace? It is mainly to save the main from being overcrowded with too many Cite pages, which quite differ in kind from the main pages and may eventually count to millions.

The main namespace, looking like a grab bag, is making life easy or simple, but disregarding the grouping or categorization of relative pages one way or another. The Category pages are partly to make for this default. The idea of subpages is another breakthrough. For example, any pages relating to any textbooks are grouped under Category:Textbooks, while some pages relating to psychological textbooks are grouped under Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks.

--KYPark [T] 08:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sooner or later I will try to edit Cite:As We May Think, Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008, and the like under the Category:User:KYPark.

--KYPark [T] 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent examples, KYPark. The idea of a Cite: namespace is growing on me. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My great pleasure. I hope it grow fruitful. -- KYPark [T] 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd

I think this is an excellent idea.

On Wikipedia This would be a place to build information about sources. Discussion of sources often takes place in articles, when, in fact, the information could cover many topics. Does the source generally qualify under WP:RS. Often this is a debate that takes place in an article, based on the perceptions and POVs of the editors of the article. The Cite page and attached Cite talk page would be a place to form neutral consensus on the source itself. Is it "self-published," or is the publisher independent? I've attempted to use w:Naturwissenschaften as a source and the argument comes back that this is a "life sciences journal," which is not true. But it can look that way. How many times does this argument need to be repeated? That is a question that was resolved under mediation, with consensus, but where would this information go? Cite space. Naturwissenschaften is a multi-disciplinary journal where the majority of articles, which are typically cross-disciplinary (that's what they prefer), happen to have something to do with the life sciences. But they have always published in all fields related to the natural sciences.

On Wikiversity, the Cite space would be like a university library. It might be organized through categories into topics, and one could quickly find all articles that use a reference. How much work would maintaining this be? Some. But it can be built slowly. As to vandalism, it would be entirely possible to semipro the entire space, for example, and to have, then, suggestions from IPs, on a page for that, allowing any registered editor to act in semi-administrative capacity. Besides, WV is still small, and I can monitor all the activity. Have a new space will not create new vandals, just a different space for them to use, it would still show up in Recent Changes.

I think it's worth trying. It costs very little, if anything, if I've understood this correctly. It would allow the use of a common citation format, if we wanted to specify one. But it's also possible to have alternate pages according to various citatation standards. Diversity is important, but the question is always which is more needed: diversity or efficiency. If it will take a huge battle to decide on a single standard, then we could define a number of them, and this is something that can be handled with templates.... --Abd 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your positive support, Abd. You got it from the very beginning, I thought. One thing I like to reassure you at the moment, however, is that the Cite should be far more than the librarian site just for sight. Yes, it is a library or collection but of the whatabouts of the library resources, that is, of information of information, the second-order or meta information. I wish this could be a melting pot or center for diverse information users with their own perspective or point of view, which should rarely be a shame! The w:confirmation bias is deeply engraved in the living, from the recent psychological perspective, which though may be no more than a point of view. Such is w:Karl Popper's argument in w:Conjectures and Refutations that all scientific theories are essentially conjectures, hence the name of the book. NPOV is an easy word but a hard warrant indeed. How could you make certain the neutrality of anything without a thorough tour through the messy massy mazy marsh of soures of sources of sources? The best thing we could do would be to allow readers for the easier tour and the final judgment. See w: Reader-response criticism and w: User-centered design.

"Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin one at random, 'memex' will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory."
-- From:Cite:As We May Think#Excerpts.

Perhaps more comments may follow later.

-- KYPark [T] 03:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

KYPark 2

Ladies and gentlemen, please have a look at Category:Linda Smith 1980 and the like Category (instead of Cite) pages, all converging to Category:As We May Think, where all of them gather together as a citing successor. From "edit this page," find how easy it is to weave such an objective, historiographical, causal web of preceding and succeeding scholarly documents, in sharp contrast to the non-causal hence rather arbitrary w:semantic web, conception of conception of conception (cf. citation of citation of citation), or simply w:intension, one of which Wikipedia and Wiktionary pages look like. There are two kinds of things in your world: what you have to pinpoint or enumerate and what you have to persuade. No doubt, the latter is what troubles you most.

In the beginning, the w:World Wide Web began with the two things: the semantic and the historiographic webs, simply the keywords and the reference numbers. Eventually, w:Tim Berners-Lee seems to have preferred the former (semantic web) to the latter (historiographic web) after all. Meanwhile, compare the traditional use of the Category namespace with the revolutionary use of cause-effect chain reactions for a historiographical, causal web!

-- KYPark [T] 10:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

KYPark has requested comment on this. --Abd 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

John Bessa

This makes me think of my "mediated citations" idea that categorizes quotes (preferably multi-paragraph) by significant authors that are cited indirectly via critical inquiry into the possible meanings of the quotes. It extends the idea of "annotated bibliographies" by inviting debate.

Under author name is the quote (and where the text is found) followed by comments on the possible meaning of the quote. Each of these meanings then would presumably link upwards to some writing that references the quotes. (And while I have your attention, please spend a few quality moments with my photography-which is not really me, but nature. John Bessa's Photography)--JohnBessa^talk 03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

School spam

We've probably deleted tons of pages of outright spam over the years, but there are always more and more schools that just drop some links and the rest as a page. We need to come up with a guideline or policy on how to deal with this. Now, two things that need to be determined:

• Do we allow universities to have a promotional page here?
• What about pages that are just copied from Wikipedia on schools?

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes within reason to your first question. No to your second question. -- darklama  23:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Once upon time there was collaboration to make policies that were needed for the Wikiversity project. Then, after the hostile takeover, Wikipedia's rules were enforced here and policy development was derailed. We've had two years of sysops and other interlopers from outside who do whatever they want to do, even in violation of policy. Does policy development matter any more? --JWSchmidt 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see a promotional page on a school as belonging here. It's not a learning resource. The page, that is. The school might be a resource, of course. There may be some way to have listings of schools that offer courses and degrees in certain subjects, but I'm not comfortable with the concept that a diploma mill might effectively advertise here. On the other hand, if a learning resource here was developed by someone at a school, and is offered as a class there, used with permission, and with some kind of disclaimer, I don't see a problem with the course being credited to the school. We are not an accrediting agency, nor should we become one; but we can list and possibly review accrediting agencies or link to sites which do this. To me, the question should be what we can do, not what we prohibit. Just copying pages from Wikipedia is useless, that should be discouraged. Critical commentary on Wikipedia articles (i.e., on some particular version) is a possibility. If it could be done in a college seminar it could be done here. If it's on Wikipedia and there is some reason to mention it, and as with other pages on other sites, we would just link to it, possibly with a very brief summary in some cases.

• I recommend that we be pro-active and put up what we *can* do, at least with some examples. Then, when someone puts up a school page like that, instead of just coming down negatively, we can point to something positive that we will allow. And we can write a policy, and "eff" the history of hostile takeover here. Whatever happened then, this is now. Besides, there is netknowledge.org. Universities in the real world cooperate with each other, it should be no different here. But each is independent and autonomous, they are not centrally controlled. Full disclosure and free sharing of information, yes, but uniformity of approach and curriculum, no. --Abd 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• An example for consideration: School of Extended Studies at Portland State University. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• That reads like spam! --Diego Grez 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• People tend to get upset when what they write is called "spam," we should avoid that term, unless it truly and clearly is spam. I'll agree, the article reads like promotion, but unless it is spewed all over the place, "spam" it isn't. Anyway, I've tagged it for speedy deletion and both warned the author about this and suggested that the author might read this Colloquium discussion, inviting him or her to, perhaps, help set up appropriate resources here. That page isn't going to be read by anyone here, it's useless. But suppose there is some course offered by the School of Extended Studies, which appears to be a fully legitimate, accredited activity, and there is a learning resource on that topic here. It could be quite appropriate to have, with resources here, some listing of schools, according to standards we set, where courses for credit are offered. That's helping our readers and students. --Abd 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  People can also get upset when what they write is called promotional. Just having a view point can seem promotional. My thought is we should put up with works that might seem promotional in nature if learning can happen from the presentation including enough details and common questions that people are likely to have are answered. I think this may be along similar lines as defining what can be done. I think Extended Studies fails that because it fails to answer important questions like what courses are offered and is devoid of details. -- darklama  01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Heck even when it mentions that its award-winning it doesn't mention what award its won, doesn't mention what businesses it meets the needs of, doesn't mention what kind of students its orientated towards, etc. Nothing to learn there. -- darklama  02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's why I tagged it for deletion! But I also want to show the user that there might be some legitimate contribution that the user can make that will help students. I don't think that articles on schools, generally, are appropriate here, but perhaps some example could convince me otherwise. However, listing schools -- with links -- where the information would support learning and be useful for that, makes sense to me, but does raise the specter of standards. Definitely we'd not want to end up, in effect, promoting some scam or diploma mill. In addition, whatever we do must be efficient. The person who put the page here also put it, apparently, on Wikipedia, it was promptly deleted, and w:Portland State University there was edited to place the School of Extended Studies in the list of major academic schools. The intro says seven schools, which matches the university catalog. SES would make it eight. It is actually a separate section in the catalog. It's really a kind of program access, perhaps providing its own courses in some cases, it appears, but also perhaps distance learning access to other courses. I edited that article to place the SES in context. I'm hoping to solicit this new user's support and participation in setting up the policy! This wasn't a spammer, but someone not clear on policies at Wikipedia, I'd guess (notability, sourcing, etc.) and not clear about the mission of Wikiversity. I think there is a way to connect Wikiversity with the SES, there would be appropriate mentions and cross-connections. The SES is fully legitimate and recognized. And looks damn useful! They offer courses to people outside of Oregon as well as to Oregon residents, at the same tuition as for locals. So someone with the catalog could go through it and add links to appropriate resources here. But that should first be considered globally.... and I'm sure not interested in slogging through that stuff. But maybe some other volunteers can do it, including someone with a special interest in SES. And we could end up with a policy that works and is easy to apply. My hope. --Abd 02:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Abd, that's an encouraging message you've left on User talk:Tncarey. Maybe DM the user if no response soon. In general, I'd suggest we want to encourage schools etc. to engage with WV and listing themselves can be a first step. But if its just a description of the institution with no obvious connection to WV, this should go on a user page or Wikipedia. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Spam, or not spam, it is out of the project's scope. Wikiversity is a learning resource, not a place to put promotional information. There are legitimate uses of school's pages, but Ottava's example clearly doesn't adheres to the policy. --Diego Grez 02:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By way perhaps of another example of an educational institution page on WV, feel free to visit, improve and critique, University of Canberra. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

University of Canberra is an example of what "school" pages should be in my view; a portal with a brief description of the school, links to relevant Wikipedia articles, relevant external links, and most importantly, links to learning resources related to that school. As has been suggested, I would agree that School of Extended Studies at Portland State University is beyond what is probably appropriate here. Encyclopaedic style lengthy descriptions of schools should be on Wikipedia. Adverts for schools shouldn't be anywhere on WMF projects. Users should come here and find educational resources, not adverts. They way that educational institutions can benefit from Wikiversity is by creating useful learning resources that may prompt users to look at what courses they offer. Adambro 10:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible template for use

In the title, I use "template" as in form and not as a Wiki template. I think that we should come up with a set standard for how pages for schools and universities should look like. Perhaps the basic information at top (type of school, size, etc) then allow them, say, a two paragraph summary on their institution/program. Then, after that, have a link to pages (learning resources, teacher's/professor's user pages, etc) related to their institution. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

There is a proposal at Wikiversity:Real world schools that has been around since 2007. Does that proposal have what is needed? Should there be discussion to establish it as a policy, or does it need work more first? What do people think? -- darklama  14:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we request unlock for Thekohser?

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

fix for text size

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

/* Fix so <tt>, <code> and <pre> tags get normal text size also in 
   some versions of Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Chrome etc. */
tt, code, pre { font-family: monospace, sans-serif !important; }

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

Done. I also added font-size:inherit !important; -- darklama  13:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User talk:Moulton

Note: this community discussion has been censored.

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

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

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

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

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

- Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Just as a note, this is not an unblock, but mostly a way to limit Moulton and to keep him focus on what could be a legitimate discussion instead of having him express himself in a way that could be problematic. I would also like Moulton to produce the content he claimed he wanted to produce for Geoff (as claimed on WR) while logged in on his name and on his user talk page, instead of going around the blocks and just doing whatever he wants. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to unblock him, just to let him edit the talk page after your suggestion. --Diego Grez 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the above in response to you, as more of a response to anyone from WMF or offsite that might mistake this as an unblock. Moulton could possibly prove that he can be trusted enough for that, but I don't feel that he is yet. I would like to see him make good on his claims at WR and show that he can contribute to our community, or, at least, show how he could. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --Diego Grez 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• An honest Custodian should just unblock Moulton. The whole affair is a disgraceful chapter in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton outed people. You know that, I know that. He cannot be given free reign until at least -that- behavior is snipped in the bud. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Moulton's SUL lock keeps him from being able to get access regardless. I'm trying to figure out a way now. If Moulton wishes to email me I can then put up the above material on his user talk page for now as long as it abides by the conditions above. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to point that out. One step at a time. There is a pending discussion here to request unlock, at least locally here, for Thekohser. If a consensus appears quickly here to do the same for Moulton, it can all be done at once, but ... no rush. This mess has existed for a few years, it can take a few more days.... I agree with transmitting material for banned users in general, the person doing it is responsible for disruption if the content is actually disruptive, otherwise, without that responsibility, it would be meat puppetry. I already put Thekohser material on his user page, at his request and on review of it. --Abd 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an unblock request for Moulton. This is a talk page unlock to allow him to put his content in one area with the benefit of his name. It would trade his using hundreds of different ips in various pages for having his own identity back on one page with a strict set of rules and intent. The restoration of identity even in a limited capacity should appeal to Moulton in some regard, as he speaks quite often about rights and intrinsic aspects of an individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a solution (after talking to a few stewards), but I will need a crat and it might be interesting to see if it works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect a bureaucrat can locally disable a global lock. If that's true, then we don't need to go to meta to open up his Talk page to Thekohser. By the way, this would be as it should be, and the only difference between global account locks and the global blacklist is then that it takes a 'crat, whereas an ordinary administrator can whitelist pages or an entire domain. Ottava, I'm busy this morning, you want to ping JT? we do have a consensus on allowing User talk access to Thekohser, to start. --Abd 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would stop mentioning Thekohser. I would not advocate doing anything like this for him. This is about a user who was banned a year and a half ago claiming that he could contribute something worth while and giving him a chance to do it without having to avoid our blocks and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same issue, basically, users "globally banned" for "cross-wiki issues," where we cannot simply work some solution locally. Both users were critical of Wikipedia and of the WMF and then of various interventions here. Both have some level of support. The case of Thekohser seems to be simpler, as to the first step, and we seem to have consensus on it. The case of Moulton is more complex; but both cases could possibly end up with no change, except that the decision would remain local. We could try unblock and see what happens, for example. Or not. I really am just looking to make it possible to negotiate an end to the disruption, which, if prior history elsewhere is any guide (with others as well as with them), will simply continue indefinitely unless a real solution is found. If that's inevitable, so be it, but it behooves us to try.

In both cases, manipulating block settings does nothing except change the block reason one sees when looking at the global account summary. In both cases we need a steward, or, I hope, merely a 'crat. --Abd 01:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The issues are extremely different, with different lead ups, backgrounds, and the rest. The people are also very different. Abd, you do not have the experience with the situation or the background, and your statements above do you far more harm than good. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, I've read a great deal of the background, but as I've written, it's complex. The people are different, and should be considered individually, as to any unblock issue. The similarities are two: both users were blocked out-of-process and without local consensus, the accounts have been globally locked preventing us from even allowing Talk page access, and both users were blocked, apparently, for criticizing Wikipedia or the WMF or privileged individuals. I'm trying to tease out the issues so they can be addressed one at a time, and there is no use discussing unblocking either account if the global lock is in place. If my statements above do me harm, can you please specify so that I can refactor or strike or whatever is appropriate? I can see above that Diego Grez struck his comment about "childish...." --Abd 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Both process and consensus was followed with Moulton's block. It is only that Jimbo beat everyone to the punch. If you noticed, Moulton was given a program to be user talk page only before he was blocked to see if he could prove that he was capable of limiting himself to a task without using real life identities and he rest. He chose not to do that and was removed. Moulton's issues were local. Thekohser issues are not local. He was not a regular here. He was not a normal contributor. He was blocked across Wiki and we don't have the same connection with Thekohser. To locally unblock him or the rest would have no real basis as local unblocks should be based on a relationship with the user and the community, and there was none for Thekohser. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

process and consensus was followed with Moulton's block <-- Moulton was subjected to an orchestrated witch hunt while Wikiversity was under threat of termination. A hit man from Wikipedia and a supporting cast of agitators got Moulton banned. The hit man was rewarded by being made a Wikiversity sysop. There was a show trial for Moulton which was closed, falsely, as constituting justification for a ban, closed by an involved witch hunter who had previously blocked Moulton and who had the brilliant idea of making the hit man a probationary custodian. Under these conditions, I don't understand why any Wikiversity sysop continues enforcing a ban against Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. I believe that all continuing sysop actions and statements in support of a ban against Moulton are serious violations of Wikiversity policy and constitute grounds for termination of sysop status. An honest Custodian should take appropriate action to deal with sysops who are enforcing a ban against Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that you would yell at people for blocks and bans when there isn't a policy, but the above which can be found also in WMF policy (meaning we don't need to have a necessary policy of our own about outing) is the thing you now say needs to have a policy first. JWSchmidt, your statements are 100% backwards and you undermine any possible support that Moulton would have for another chance. I was giving him a way out of the mess, and you are doing whatever you can to close that off. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

yell at people <-- I'm not sure what you mean. Some people view THIS KIND OF TEXT AS YELLING. the above which can be found also in WMF policy <-- "the above"? Are you saying that using someone's name is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy? If so, please quote from the policy to support your claim. "you undermine any possible support that Moulton would have for another chance" <-- I'd like to see him be given his first chance to defend himself against the charges that you and others have made. --JWSchmidt 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yelling is another word for scolding, correcting, chastising, etc. It is also the privacy policy, as I mentioned before. Moulton had many chances just from me and he refused. I even gave him a user talk page chance like I am doing now and he blew it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"It is also the privacy policy" <-- Please quote from the privacy policy in support of the idea that Moulton should be banned from participating at Wikiversity. I even gave him a user talk page chance <-- I assume you mean this. So, you were not satisfied with that little experiment? On the basis of your dissatisfaction you claim the right to enforce a ban against Moulton's participation at Wikiversity? I don't recognize your authority to do so. Please directly quote policy that supports your position. In the absence of justification in policy, enforcing a ban against Moulton is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton outed people. You know that <-- If you want to make charges against Moulton, I suggest you provide your evidence and let Moulton respond to your charges. Which Wikiversity policy states that participants can be banned for using someone's name? My understanding of "outed" is that it is a term like "troll" and "disruption" that Wikipedia sysops frequently use when they want to abuse their power....almost always no evidence to support their charge is provided. Moulton was participating constructively at Wikiversity and then a hit man from Wikipedia came here with the declared objective of getting Moulton banned. It's a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation that Moulton was banned and the hit man was made a sysop. The Wikiversity community should have a discussion about the wisdom of allowing anonymous Wikiversity participants to publish claims about living people, particularly under conditions where those people are not allowed to respond. --JWSchmidt 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, you were present for many of his instances of using people's real names, even my own. He uses my name and identity quite regularly. I had to go through his archives and delete last December after someone pointed out that it was still visible on some pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008, collaborating editors at Wikiversity often made use of real-world names and some still do. Colleagues often get a warm felling when a friend uses their name. In 2008 a few Wikipedians started imposing rules from outside of this project, such as making it a crime to use someone's name. I think the Wikiversity community should have a long and serious discussion about the damage done to Wikiversity by "Wikipedia Disease" and the forced imposition of outside rules. Why can't Wikiversity be a community of scholarly learners who can refer to each other by name? Why must this wiki continue to be a hell hole where anonymous barbarians are free to harass and drive away the scholarly participants? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Often does not mean mandatory, nor does it make it acceptable to use identity against someone's will. Your argument falls apart on that simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to build a community of collaborating learners when there are sysops who protect the right of anonymous thugs to harass and drive away other wiki participants. This abhorrent practice destroyed the Wikiversity community that was built up during the first two years of the Wikiversity project. Wiki participants who want to remain anonymous should restrain themselves from publishing false claims about other wiki participants. The Wikiversity community should carefully study why it is that a few sysops protect and reward anonymous thugs while preventing honest wiki participants from defending themselves against the thugs. --JWSchmidt 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is harassing to out people. It is also against our privacy policy, which is built into the WMF system. It cannot be justified in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this proposed policy? The WMF policy is not relevant. I don't believe that using someone's name is crime. If you want to make it a crime then why not start by making Wikiversity:Privacy policy official policy? --JWSchmidt 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

He stated there that he would want to help Geoff on his project. If so, then that is enough for me to try. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• On the issue of whether a 'crat will be able to deal with this, it doesn't look like it from Special:ListGroupRights. Whilst we can locally whitelist globally blocked IPs, we can't do anything about global locks it doesn't seem. Assistance from a steward would be required I think. Adambro 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I already talked to multiple stewards and I know how a Crat can do it (and only Crats can do it). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how a 'crat can do this then? Adambro 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is sensitive and only something a Crat can do, so I wont be talking about it except to one of our Crats. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I won't tell anyone. I assume it involves renaming the local account to detach it from the global account and then renaming back. Is that really sensitive information? Adambro 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At #Adambro, Adambro, you suspected my word "sane vandal" of being an oxymoron. May I ask

• whether User:Moulton is sane or not, and
• whether he is a vandal worth blocking or not, or in a word,
• whether he is a "sane vandal" no doubt?

-- KYPark [T] 08:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

See this page for some unanswered questions related to the above. Unless and until those questions are answered, the above is an exercise in futility. —Moulton 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In relation to #Wikiversity mentioned below:

• Great Repeal Bill

  The Great Repeal Bill is intended to abolish many restrictive laws and regulations believed to hamper individual freedoms, society, and businesses in the United Kingdom. Members of the public are able to add to the list of laws and rules to be repealed in the draft of the Bill below. You are also highly encouraged to join the debate about why certain legislation should be included (or excluded) from the Great Repeal Bill.
  This experiment in direct democracy allows ordinary citizens to have a direct say in drafting of legislation, which is believed to be the first of its kind.

• w: Institute of Economic Affairs

  The core belief of free-marketeers is that people should be free to do what they want in life as long as they don't harm anyone else. They say that on the whole, society's problems and challenges are best dealt with by people and companies interacting with each other freely without interference from politicians and the State. This means that government action, whether through taxes, regulation or laws, should be kept to a minimum. IEA authors and speakers are therefore always on the look-out for ways of reducing the government's role in our lives.

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

---

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

Here is how he can do it, without abandoning what is important to him. Moulton, er, Caprice, I know you are inclined to research and comment on certain controversial areas. If you approach these slowly and carefully, and come to a screeching halt if someone objects, until consensus can be found, there should be little or no problem. You needn't stop, just slow way, way down, so that everyone else can catch up with you. It takes time to discuss things, and someone like you may tend to keep pouring it on. Some activities may be possible here, some not, at least not at the present time. We won't know until we check it out. If you want to work in some area and think there is the remotest possibility it will cause some shouting, ask. Talk with us about it, preferably off-wiki at first. --Abd 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be precise, what do you mean by "us" Abd? -- KYPark [T] 07:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the general "us" which includes all who are interested, or even more than that. I'm suggesting that someone like Moulton first discuss stuff before pushing it, and I'd assume this would be first of all with those who are sympathetic, and who are willing to support some activity, and then with others who might be more neutral to broaden support and perhaps smooth off unnecessary rough edges. I was including myself in "us," but not excluding others. Moulton has extensively communicated with me off-wiki, and it is always welcome. By the way, the advice I gave to Moulton I also give to myself. I don't push my "right ideas" unless I've identified sufficient support that I think they might become consensus if examined. Pushing ideas before their time is disruptive. --Abd 16:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Along with #Wikiversity mentioned below, I like you to recall my talk at #Abd, and also to note Sir Karl Popper's opening quote from Sir John Eccles the Nobel laureate reading: "I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success." Trial and error make up a vital, if not the best, way of learning. And, scientific revolutions were often ridiculed in the beginning.

So I would not be so determined to sort apparent pseudoscience out of normal science at once. Fortunately, notorious oligarchic peer-reviews out there are replaced by egalitarian counter-edits here. Note the communist experiment may have failed of oligarchy. Any oligarchic policy or tendency may fatally damage the open egalitarian image of the WMF projects, I do fear, so that they have a good reason to do their best to refrain from it. Or, the jealous may cry they are worse occupied by a minority of unknown origin and authority. They have to show up the unknown are not vested institutional interests as pointed out by H. G. Wells in the following:

In the hands of competent editors, educational directors and teachers, these condensations and abstracts incorporated in the world educational system, will supply the humanity of the days before us, with a common understanding and the conception of a common purpose and of a commonweal such as now we hardly dare dream of. And its creation is a way to world peace that can be followed without any very grave risk of collision with the warring political forces and the vested institutional interests of today. Quietly and sanely this new encyclopaedia will, not so much overcome these archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily but imperceptibly, of their present reality. A common ideology based on this Permanent World Encyclopaedia is a possible means, to some it seems the only means, of dissolving human conflict into unity. [my bold face]

— Excerpt (p. 88) from World Brain, Doubleday, Doran & Co., Garden City, NY. [2]

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

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

-- KYPark [T] 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity mentioned

FYI, Wikiversity mentioned in the Telegraph in Who will admit that the Right ways are not the wrong ways? --Gbaor 11:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Exciting! And some people tried to shut that page down. That just goes to show that we did the right thing there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The page is a problem, but the problem is that it would take some serious work by an experienced Wikiversitan (or someone else who understands Wikiversity concepts) to fix it. I don't see that it does significant harm, pending, though. Just that it would take the work to turn it into a true learning resource. Consider it under construction. --Abd 16:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is FYI for "for your information"? -- KYPark [T] 07:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Gbaor 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the good old FYR (for your reference) related to Old English fyr and Ancient Greek pyr meaning fire and light. -- KYPark [T] 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You may see also #Wikiversity mentioned below. -- KYPark [T] 08:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fallen" into public domain

A mere matter of semantics, but do you think WV could start refering to works that have become Public Domain as "ascended into the Public Domain" rather than "fallen into the Public Domain", as is presently the case on the front page, where the Vameer is featured. --Leighblackall 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I said the same when my missus ascended pregnant ;-) Privatemusings 01:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)language is as language does - can you really fight it?

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

To me, all these quite sound like a private talk in the Colloquium. Am I hopelessly wrong? -- KYPark [T] 07:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but there isn't a separate Village Pump for talk like this. "Passed into the public domain" is more like what I'm used to, or something like that, and does this really matter enough to take up the time of those who look, later, through the archives, trying to find something? My answer is no, so, if there is no objection, I will delete this section, or move it to an appropriate Talk page, or anyone else can do that. --Abd 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For me this is a valid question here... --Gbaor 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For me "Fallen" also bears a more negative meaning, but frankly I never noticed this regarding to the "Fallen into public domain" expression --Gbaor 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Two policies need comment and approval

I have put up a proposal for a Wikiversity:Child protection policy and have added an outing section to the proposed Wikiversity:Privacy policy.

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

I would suggest that we'll need more than three days to discuss these policies. Wikiversity:Child protection policy is completely new and there are likely many revision that will be needed before it can be considered to be declared as policy. Adambro 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be "at least" 3 days, meaning, I wont push for a vote before three days nor would I push for a close of a vote before 7 days after the start of the vote. I don't want a mishap like what happened just recently regarding the determining of a page a "policy" without a clear and structured process. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikimania + presentations about Wikiversity

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

Block of JWSchmidt by Adambro - Vote and comment

If you have a view about the recent block of JWSchmidt by Adambro, please consider Voting and commenting. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked after a 24 hour period. I then warned JWS about continuing such behavior and asked him to start the Community Review on himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill, this Colloquium is not really Acropolis of WV where its community members including myself are duly informed of what they should take seriously here, is it? That is to say, much earlier than yours, it should have made at least a reference or link to the bloody User talk:JWSchmidt that started two weeks ago, I greatly regret, not to mention what's going on there that long that harshly. Are they bullying him in the corner?

-- KYPark [T] 03:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

KYPark, yours is a good reminder that we should be providing more regular updates/summaries to Colloquium on substantial discussions taking place on other pages. There is now this Community Review page Wikiversity:Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds somewhat laughable to insist that policy pages can be edited as ever or readily as any page. Yeah, they could unless explicitly ruled out. Nulla poena sine lege (No penalty without a law.) So maybe more laughable to warn and block the editor instead of locking and keeping such pages from too frequent changes made by anyone. Maybe still more laughable to unblock the blocked editor and warn: "Ye should recognize (or confess in practice) what's wrong with ye!" my translation of an old Korean cliche corrupt officials often yelled, reading "ne joe-reul ne-ga allyeotta!" (네 죄를 네가 알렸다!) All My Way of making you laugh at all.

-- KYPark [T] 07:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Community Review

Notice: The behavior of all Wikiversity Custodians is now the subject of a community review. The major problem is that a few sysops continue to abuse their power and positions of trust. Other Custodians fail to follow Wikiversity policy so as to prevent further disruption of Wikiversity by those who abuse their power. Now is the time for all honest Wikiversity participants to come to the aid of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Falsified log entry being used to justify disruption of Wikiversity community discussions.

Question. How many Custodians plan to disrupt the Community Review process in this way? --JWSchmidt 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon ... You are smart enough to know the difference between disruption and exasperation. WAS 4.250 11:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the community review, the review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. I believe it is disruptive for a Custodian to make a public statement suggesting that this important community collaboration is a waste of time. Sometimes collaboration is one percent inspiration and 99% exasperation. --JWSchmidt 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Update

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

Collaboration with Conservapedia on "The Unborn Child"

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

Clarifying the Moulton situation

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

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

Note from Cormaggio

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

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

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

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

Essentially, I believe that unblocking Moulton and inviting more drama would be a step backwards. Developing a clear sense of purpose and methodology in building a learning community - informed partly by dramas of the past, but without reigniting them - would be a major step forward. Cormaggio ^talk 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% on Moulton. Moulton's refusal to give up using people's real life names and to move on from 2 year old disputes was enough to show to me that he stop the problematic behavior. There are no rights to participate, and Moulton likes to assume rights that don't exist and demand for "contracts" but he cannot abide by the most simplistic of contracts. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I agree completely. I can't think of anything more that needs to be said. -- darklama  15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

What matters is what can be done now, not what could of been done two years ago. If you keep focusing on what could of happened two years ago, another two years will pass before you know it. When a person continues to use the real name of a fellow Wikiversity participant after requesting that they stop, yes that really is a problem even if nobody is hurt by it. -- darklama  16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"When a person continues to use the real name of a fellow Wikiversity participant after requesting that they stop, yes that really is a problem even if nobody is hurt by it." <-- Not in any authentic learning community. Why can't we use the names of fellow Wikiversity community members? No harm, no foul. If someone really wants anonymity then they can create an account that they have not linked to their real world identity. --JWSchmidt 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is always a way to link an anonymous person to their real world identity. How about because you have no right to use a person's real name? How about because you have no right to determine what is no harm? How about because you have no right to determine what is not harm for another person? -- darklama  17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is all so simple then why not put it into a policy? --JWSchmidt 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton doesn't need a policy to do what I ask. He just doesn't want to do it at all. By the way, one need only see SB Johnny's threats to "ruin me" through harassing me irl, contacting people I know, etc, to know that Moulton's history of spreading personal information on others is severely problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton was viciously harassed by Wikipedians who followed him into the real world. Are you saying that we all have no defense against anonymous wiki thugs? Why not go after the thugs rather than Moulton? --JWSchmidt 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read WR, you'd see that I've been viciously harassed too, but I don't post their real life names and identities up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that others would leave Moulton defenseless against a gang of thugs is exactly why I must be "so aggressive", as Cormaggio put it. If I wasn't, I could not live with myself. I guess here in this "civilized" learning community it is just up to the old scholars to defend themselves. Is that what Wikiversity has to teach the world? --JWSchmidt 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

By provoking Moulton to stoop to such lows, they won. Don't you see that? They caused him to cross a line that defeats any argument he could ever make and destroys any chance to be listened to in the future. The only way he can recover is to leave that area. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"stoop to such lows" <-- Ottava Rima, please go to Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions#Moulton and describe what you mean by "such lows". And this time don't create a show trial. Let Moulton defend himself against your accusations. Don't turn this into a witch hunt this time. I'd much rather have people collaborate to make needed guidelines like Wikiversity:Privacy policy and make them official. I called for that to be done two years ago. Why can't we just do it? And I really think the way to do it is let Moulton help. He has much experience with online learning communities. Why must he be excluded because some people know how to game the system and pretend that it is a crime to use their name? Moulton can help make sure that Wikiversity is set up in a sensible way. Wikiversity does not have to be a clone of Wikipedia. Why ignore critics and warnings about the weaknesses of our ideas? Can't we listen to Moulton? Is it just easier to reach for the banhammer? Every time someone clubs him on the head he wins and Wikiversity looks more ridiculous. In third grade someone called you a name and you got mad. Now Moulton calls you by your name and you get mad? Does that mean we've now reached second grade? Let it go and look for ways to work with him. Moulton could be a great asset to this community if people would stop taunting him. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up people's real life identities and the rest is a low and unacceptable behavior. You have been told that multiple times, as has Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I'd also agree with the general theory, "don't kill" but if I was on a jury I might be persuaded by evidence to give a verdict of justifiable homicide. In the case of Moulton I believe he should have the chance to defend himself against all charges, call witnesses in his own defense, cross-examine his accusers. You know, it is called justice. Go to Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions#Moulton and make your accusations, but let Moulton defend himself through a process of just practices. Wikiversity is not a place for the kind of show trials that Moulton has been subjected to. I think you know the unacceptable behavior that Moulton was subjected to by his tormentors at Wikipedia and those tormenters followed him here and caused disruption. I defend Moultons right to defend himself and I want Wikiversity to give Moulton a fair chance to defend himself against his accusers. This is not Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy is not in effect here. I favor the creation of a privacy policy that protects anonymous editors and protects people like Moulton from thugs who hide behind their anonymity. --JWSchmidt 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me try another approach based on your fixation on the above language. Obviously, you aren't in a power or political position to determine what is fair, what wikiversity is meant to be, and the rest. Instead, you have been shown over the past two years that both you and Moulton are at the mercy of fickle admin who rely on arbitrary decisions. So, instead of claiming what should be, focus on what is. I provided the criteria that -I-, as a fickle admin relying on arbitrary decisions, would need to perform an unblock as a whim. You can say that is unjust or not right all you want, but it is how it is, and you can agree to the terms or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

JWS, if he didn't out people he wouldn't have given them an excuse to ban. It is that simple. If he would have stayed within the rules then they would have been removed for their disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, care to support your accusation with evidence? Care to let Moulton defend himself and cross-examine those who have made accusations against him? Or is this just going to be another WMF witch hunt? I'm a scientist. show me the evidence, let Moulton present his defense, prove your case. This is Wikiversity and we don't follow the rules of Wikipedia. What Wikiversity policy did Moulton violate? Justice is not a cop with a gun and excuse. Moulton is innocent until proven guilty. This is a scholarly learning community, not a wiki-cop MMORPG where thugs bash scholars on the head with their toy banhammers. --JWSchmidt 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

References? You remember the names in his "song parodies". You remember how he used my name multiple times. I had to go through his archives and remove the entries because I wasn't able to clean it all when it first happened. He tosses around real names left and right. Even if it never happened in the past, he can still agree to not doing it in the future. I don't care if there is a policy or not. Right now, he has to do that to get back in. It isn't questionable, debatable, or anything else. It is the one clear standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The need for something like the proposed Wikiversity Privacy Policy is under community review. Your comments at that review are welcome. You remember the names in his "song parodies" <--No, I do not. I doubt if there were any. Do you have evidence that there were? "he used my name multiple times" <-- Moulton often uses my name and I hardly notice his cordial way of referring to me. Until Wikiversity has a policy that forbids collaborating Wikiversity scholars from using each others names I will continue to defend his right to do so. "go through his archives and remove the entries" <-- Please provide links to the removals you are talking about. "It is the one clear standard" <-- If it is so clear then you should be able to link to the Wikiversity policy where this "clear standard" is expounded. --JWSchmidt 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't how things work. There is no policy keeping me from blocking people who post names. So, until Wikiversity has a policy, I will continue to enforce the blocks. Therefore, if Moulton wants back in, he knows 100% what to do. This isn't negotiable - he needs to give up using people's real names and identities. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"I will continue to enforce the blocks" <-- JWSchmidt says, "What block are you talking about"? "Nay!" Beetlebaum says, "Neigh!" "We will not submit" --the winner..... Beetlebaum

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Cormac's appeal, and therefore i would like to make a few propositions to help Wikiversity:

• There used to be an agreement that the conflicts between members would be discarded from the Colloquium. The colloquium should be in the first place a page for ideas about Wikiversity and not about fights within the community of Wikiversity. These fights can better be handled by those within the community who will act as referee or middleman to end conflicts.

Other solutions are less easy.

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

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

Note from KYPark

To User:Moulton

Ain't you unforgivably childish to keep calling Ottava by his or her real name who indeed hates being so called? Keep being so, making me waste my life, and you'll keep being globally and indefinitely blocked. Understood? -- KYPark [T] 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• He doesn't hate it. It's just a convenient excuse for him to exhibit his penchant for wagging his B&D banhammer at me. —Moulton 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton is demonstrating an apparent attachment to his narrow interpretation of the situation, such that anyone reading him and trusting his account and judgment would end up severely misled. Ottava is certainly not "wagging his banhammer," not the ban end, anyway. He's holding out the claw end that can unblock. Ottava made an offer to unblock with a condition. Whenever we offer to act to assist another, we may set conditions, and only if one is the only one who could act to assist would these conditions possibly stray into coercive abuse. In this case, Ottava has not blocked Moulton, and has not threatened to block him. KYPark is a newcomer here, if I'm correct. He sees the situation. He may or may not realize that many others have said roughly the same thing to Moulton. Whether Ottava "hates" the use of his real name or not is beside the point. Moulton, perhaps he's engaging in some "action research"! What if he is testing to see what you will do when faced with a 'real-name situation,' i.e., a user who expresses discomfort with the use of any name other than the user name.

My point, generally, is that there existed conditions when Moulton was originally blocked that make it complex to judge whether the blocks were deeply proper or not, and we could argue for centuries over it (or maybe with good process we could find some kind of consensus, but we don't have good process until we establish it). The important issue is how we proceed from now on. Moulton has an opportunity to join that, or he -- and JWS -- can continue beating dead horses, which is messy and rather distracting, eh? We have the right to stop that, and I'm not shy to act, respecting such shreds of due process which can be mustered. --Abd 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • "narrow interpretation of the situation" <-- Shall we widen our perspectives just a bit more, lest anyone "end up severely misled"? Abd said, "Ottava has not blocked Moulton, and has not threatened to block him". In fact, yesterday Ottava said, "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." Today, Ottava blocked Moulton.

The "community ban" was imposed by a show trial set up when Moulton and I were blocked. The wiki hitman who came from Wikipedia to Wikiversity on a self-declared mission to get Moulton banned participated in the show trial and was permitted to make threats and deliver intimidation. During the show trial, the Wikiversity community was under external threat and intimidated by Wikipedian bullies. The only discussion of a ban was withdrawn. Calling that a "community ban" is a lie. The show trial was a bogus perversion of justice. Anyone with a shred of decency would not enforce such an unjust ban.

--JWSchmidt 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank heaven for little timestamps. At the time that Moulton complained about Ottava "wagging his banhammer," Ottava had not yet blocked Moulton. The block came later, and is possibly part of a procedural action, undoing the unblock of Darklama, which Darklama may not have anticipated would create a real unblock situation. I didn't notice the block until later, I guess I can't check the block status every minute.... What I wrote was true as of the time of the edit I was responding to. Which was the point: charges being made that weren't true. In this case, it's somewhat possible that the charges were a self-fulfilling prophecy.... And I see signs that, not just this time, Moulton has successfully trolled administrators and custodians into taking excessive or "unjustified" action, which he can then complain about, in an ever-escalating spiral. I've concluded -- much to my surprise, in fact, having been myself an oft-rejected critic of wiki governance -- that Moulton was justly, if not properly, banned. But it is not crucial to me that Moulton accept this, and Moulton's humiliation is not part of my agenda, indeed it is contrary to it. I'd just like to see the larger community, which includes Moulton, start finding ways to cooperate, and I think it's possible, with time and patience. The present disruption postpones that day, so it must stop. I'll be able to show better examples in the future, I believe.

In any case, we now have a clear blocking custodian who is local and responsible to us as a community. That's progress, in my view. --Abd 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. How do I create a real unblock situation? I didn't anticipate anything, other than my own recusal from any further decision or action with regard to Moulton's status on this project for the unforeseeable future. -- darklama  00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so are all of us, Darklama. And, Abd, you are suggesting we are trapped by a vicious circle. I agree; both sides are more or less responsible. So they desperately need an unconditional cease-fire for the peace of the community, which is above all. Unblocking Moulton is the easiest way to that end in a way, I strongly believe as many others may do. -- KYPark [T] 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I welcome you here indeed, Abd, because I'd like to remind you (and of course other admins) of w: Zhuge Liang in ancient China who captured the southern rebel leader, w: Meng Huo, seven different times, but released him each time in order to achieve Meng's genuine surrender. That's all. -- KYPark [T] 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Got it. Thanks. However, we have no means to capture anyone here. The power of custodians is illusory. As to Moulton, I'm working on it. Almost met him last weekend, but it turned out to be impossible. I'm in this for the long haul. --Abd 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Metaphorically, blocking is capture, as both are depriving of freedom. I appreciate your effort for his unblocking. BTW, could you kindly email me why it is impossible? -- KYPark [T] 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, understood, granted that he indeed hates it? -- KYPark [T] 04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Make it simple; take it easy; and be convinced it's gonna be alright. For there's no reason whatsoever for blocking you globally and indefinitely, I'm quite sure, except that you just keep calling him or her by his or her real name. Won't you just stop it right away, Moulton? Understood? -- KYPark [T] 10:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting how a guy who spent two years telling people that they can't possibly know what another thinks or feels is suddenly assuming what I think or feel. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A Guide for the Perplexed

Don't be perplexed among the word, the thought (idea or reference), and the thing (reality or referent), as painfully crudely associated to each other in the w: triangle of reference (1923). My word "indeed hates" is a mere word at worst, perhaps representing more or less of my thought or belief as such at best, but perhaps not the reality at worst.

From the word, indeed, you could not surely judge the thought, not to mention the reality. Moulton had been right to argue in this perspective in the past. Nevertheless, he was born, or cursed, a human to say such words, whether referring to the true or false reality.

-- KYPark [T] 04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• KYPark, I'm not sure if you saw Moulton's reply to your question. --JWSchmidt 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I did see and understand it enough. But unfortunately it hardly helps me make it simple in my way, I fear. I'd just go my way. -- KYPark [T] 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There seems to be no moral principle such that you should or should not call her by her real or nick name. But there must be one such that you should not do to her what she dislikes indeed. I hope this could be a fair explanation. -- KYPark [T] 15:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• One would think this easy to understand, but the clouds get in the way. --Abd 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep imagineering or social-engineering

Who on earth looks like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, whence such fussy messy disruptions used to rise, hence the evilest personality you should better drive out of the community before "the bad money drives out the good"?

-- KYPark [T] 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep watching science war within

Science is war in a way, politics in another, hence Machiavellianism. More specifically, such is the case with scientific revolutions, paradigms and scholarships. Not only methodologically but also phenomenally, this view is well according to Thomas Kuhn's (1962) revolutionary, and Paul Feyerabend's (1975) anarchic sociology of science. As such, scientists and scholars have to do with any means of power, say, even the WMF custodianship, by all means!

-- KYPark [T] 07:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that science is war. Take Darwin, Newton and Einstein for instance. They are icons of science and did they fight wars? No, most of the time, Darwin and Newton were fascinated about the world, trying to understand it in detail. They came to numerous theories and experiments and explained for us the world. Einstein did the same, but he also liked to enjoy his fame and have a lot of girlfriends.

Scientists do have a lot of fights over the truth of their assertions, but the postmodernists aren't right that science is only about that. Agreements are made on the best possible knowledge available, and like Newton said, there is always the possibility of mistakes. So, he asks people to check his results, in order to make sure that he is right. You can't check science by fighting wars. You check science with experiments and doing the math. Thomas Kuhn is too simplistic to focus primarily on the subjectivity and the and the need for consensus within the scientific community. Truth is what science is about in the first place, and the fascination with nature and the world around us.

Science was able to come to the fore thanks to a concern among many moderate Europeans with the way catholics and protestants were slaughtering each other and making life miserable for everyone. Science became one of the pillars, next to culture, enlightened politics, to make a better world. There was a desire in this temporary life, to make life more beautiful. Wikiversity could be a place where the enlightenment ideals can be relived. Not because the proponents of enlightenment are always right, but because it is a means of enjoying a good time as a person in your temporary life. I can refer to Voltaire, George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, emperor Rudolph II and many others to support my views.Daanschr 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• No doubt, science is science and war is war. It is in a way or metaphorically, however, that science is war as well as love is war. Until 1974, scientists and philosophers spoke ill of metaphors that sounds unreasonable. But the mainstream cognitive theory has changed so as to take them seriously.
• "Take Darwin" -- Darwinism has been at war with creationism for one and half centuries. Modern science has grown up from the ashes of scientific martyrs burnt at the stake. During the Inquisition, Galileo Galilei told a lie that the earth stood still. Set free, he murmured to himself that the earth revolves.
• "Scientists do have a lot of fights over the truth of their assertions, but the postmodernists aren't right that science is only about that." That's it! You got it!
• Fight to prove "Thomas Kuhn is too simplistic to focus primarily on the subjectivity," etc. Then you'll win against one of the greatest sociologists of science. Go ahead!
• "Voltaire" -- Please read: Will Durant (1926) ''The Story of Philosophy'', Chapter V. "Voltaire and the French Enlightenment," esp., viii. "Écrasez l'Infame" ("Destroy shamelessness!" (my trans.) appended to every letter to his colleagues.), and find how he fought through his life all the way down to the very tomb.
  -- KYPark [T] 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• I forgot to mention the spectacular war between Newton and Leibniz you must know. Personally I believe it is Leibniz who invented the infinitesimal calculus, while most others may believe it is Newton. So I have to struggle very hard to upset them, perhaps endangering even my life! Such is science. -- KYPark [T] 17:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientists try to determine the facts. There is no reason to fight wars over the facts. 1+1=2 and nothing else. The wars you refer to are wars on opinions.

Voltaire did more with his life than fighting. He came with a positive ideal of how we can live our lives without religious conflict, and than later became pessimistic and wrote his book Candide where the horros of life became more apperent. My take on his work is that he tries to say that we should enjoy the beauty of life, try to make the world better, and sadly also have to endure hardships.Daanschr 17:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of courtesy, would it be possible if you reply after the reply of someone else? Otherwise the discussion appears most untidy and it will be hard for outsiders to follow the discussion as it evolves.

For those following this discussion, KYPark added a reply after my reply, which is signed with the apropriate time mark. I will repeat this reply for a second time, to make sure that others know what i am responding to.

I forgot to mention the spectacular war between Newton and Leibniz you must know. Personally I believe it is Leibniz who invented
the infinitesimal calculus, while most others may believe it is Newton. So I have to struggle very hard to upset them, perhaps
endangering even my life! Such is science. -- KYPark [T] 17:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For science it doesn't matter much who came with certain knowledge, the most important thing is the knowledge in itself. I don't agree that the word war should apply in the argument Newton and Leibniz had with each other, because there weren't any soldiers and bloodshed involved.Daanschr 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, they try to describe the facts of the world on the one hand, and prescribe the values on the other. The task is not always so simple as a simple arithmetic '1+2=3'. More often it looks so difficult that they set up such and such theories to explain (away, at worst) phenomena or appearances rather than facts (exactly). Thus, the critical in science are theories rather than facts. The atomic structure is not a matter of fact but theory.
• I never said that science is wholly war, not to mention holy war, but a warring aspect in a way, in a sense, or in part, nor that Voltaire fought all the time but "all the way to the very tomb" in abstract and rather exaggerating rhetoric. When he died, the church denied him to be buried around Paris. So his friends made the death sit in the coach to pretend to be alive, and drove far away to beg for a grave of a remote grave yard. Doesn't the dead man look like struggling to the deadly last?
• Let's disregard the unfortunate coincidental edit collision. I've no idea how the computer behaves.
• You are supposed to be very literal. Bloodshed is not an absolute condition of any war, say, cold war. You need to know how cruel Newton was and how Leibniz was upset. It was far more than word war. It may have been worse than a bloody war.
  -- KYPark [T] 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The world is complex and we haven't got a fundamental theory of everything, and even if we do there are still a lot of complicated phenomena that cannot be explained from first principles. So there are partial products in the form of competing theories, which can be thought of as different means of organising the data that people think would work best; and different schools would fight for the scarce resources, in particular, publicity, funding, and graduate freshmen; and, yes, in the case of Newton and Leibniz, the attribution of new ideas. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Hillgentleman. You almost finish it up. Thanks. -- KYPark [T] 01:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

By focusing too much on the strife between scientists and between scientists and christianity, the scientific knowledge itself dissapears from attention. I don't like the idea of having to fight wars all my life. I like to live in a civilization where people respect each other. The last thing is what the enlightenment is about.Daanschr 08:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep watching science war within focally though implicitly aims for you and anyone else "to live in a civilization where people respect each other," Daanschr. Be convinced this is exactly what I mean, whatever words I used. Society is the end while science is a mere means, as I suggest in the last passage of the next section, reading "Let's destroy it for a better society rather than a better science, which is for the former." Nevertheless, you by no means should underestimate and neglect the mere means, which by nature may be more dangerous than the atomic bomb!

-- KYPark [T] 09:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't dangerous at all.Daanschr 10:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The atomic bomb, for example, is a product hence part of science. Isn't it dangerous at all indeed? Oh, my, Daanschr. -- KYPark [T] 12:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That is true. Though science can't be entirely blamed for it. The 20th century saw a number of bloody ideological wars, fought partly by the enemies of science, like the Nazis and the American conservatives. There is an even larger danger than atomic bombs at the moment, for which science can't be missed. Some climate scientists warn that the destruction of our natural habitat due to overpopulation and industry will lead to the eventual extinction of us humans, because water and air might become toxic for us. Only scientific insight can lead the way to preserving human kind.Daanschr 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• For me, you are not objectively describing but subjectively prescribing science into what is flawless hence all goodness, namely, scientism in the pejorative sense. Neutrally and unfortunately, however, science is both good and evil, either good or evil, hence Janus-faced anyway. Evil science made the atomic bomb.
• Scientists of honor may be able to synthesize monsters of horror by manipulating stem cells in the future. All scientists are not good guys. They may plagiarize, deceive, and dare to wage even immoral science wars. Have a look at the Sokal hoax. For so many reasons, science should be kept under stringent social control.
• All I'm saying at last is make science for society. And it should start right here I'm not happy about right now! Therefore I have to keep saying until I get happy again. Please pay attention to the wider context, that is, #Note from KYPark as a coherent whole.
  -- KYPark [T] 13:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• One more comment: The Nazis were not the enemies but masters of science. And environmental deterioration is mostly the side effect of science at best. -- KYPark [T] 14:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitler had many superstitious believes, including the believe in god, which is very pronounced in Mein Kampf. Also, he attacked the evolution theory, by stating that animals were created by god and not gradually evolved. So, that makes him an enemy of science. He also wanted to return to a more agrarian kind of society.Daanschr 14:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Destroy shamefulness and shamelessness within first

This is my version of what Voltaire, the gate keeper of French encyclopedism, used to shout at the end of his letters. Newton was unforgivably cruel, shameful and shameless, granted that Leibniz indeed invented the infinitesimal calculus earlier than Newton and Newton knew the fact. This is not to get into that historical muddle, but to suggest the possibility that even the greatest scientists and scholars of celebrity could be too shameful and shameless, and the impossibility of insisting that there are no such ones here. Let's destroy it for a better society rather than a better science, which is for the former.

-- KYPark [T] 01:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have troubles with forum

I'm trying to open forum but sometimes there are no images on it :(

Errr forum? Can you link it?--Juan de Vojníkov 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The global village

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

I have a group of Australian students who are interested in talking to people from other countries. They are studying their own place in the global community.

well I'm from another country - but currently in Sydney ;-) - there are folk from further afield around here - but it's probably best to setup your own pages - perhaps with some questions, or explaining what you'd hope to achieve here - you can then invite people to take a look, and join in..... would you like some help with that? Privatemusings 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin problem

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

Entry #1

Wednesday 21st July 2010

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

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

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

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

Entry #2

Thursday 22nd July 2010

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

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

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

Emotion scale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Em, I'm sure Rock drum is not Moulton. I have interacted with him/her before and I don't think it is a sock of Moult. Diego Grez 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I never stated he was Moulton's sock. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I met Rock drum in the #wikiversity-en chat channel on July 18. He asked for help with his Drum set learning project. User:Darklama participated in the discussion. User:Diego Grez came in to the channel and exchanged greetings with Rock drum. After Adambro started wildly kicking and banning, we went to #wikiversity-en-projects and Rock drum met User:Moulton. I have collaborated with Rock drum at the Wikiversity the Movie learning project. Rock drum clearly has musical expertise that I lack. It is absurd to suggest that he is me. --JWSchmidt 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC) --JWSchmidt 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said he was you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, what did you mean when you said that I have created a sock puppet? I take that as a serious accusation. Ottava Rima, please name that sock puppet. --JWSchmidt 17:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you not complain when Beetlebaum was exposed as belonging to you? Sigh. Talking to you makes me think either you lack short term memory or you are just messing with us. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Beetlebaum is one of my accounts. If you are suggesting that I have ever misused one of my accounts then you need to provide evidence. The correct term is "alternative account", not "sock puppet" (see sock puppet) and I can make as many alternative accounts as I like. "Talking to you makes me think either you lack short term memory or you are just messing with us." <-- When I can make a fellow collaborating learner think, then I feel it has been a good day. "you lack short term memory" <-- Do you have any evidence that might refute that seemingly weak hypothesis? "you are just messing with us" <-- Funny, I've been wondering if you were messing with User:Rock drum and Adambro...does that make us even? "Did you not complain when Beetlebaum was exposed as belonging to you?" <-- I did not. I did complained when Adambro showed that he should not be trusted to responsibly make use of information obtained by checkuser. --JWSchmidt 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to repeatedly fail to acknowledge regarding the checkuser request is that I wasn't specifically entrusted with any confidential checkuser data. The information that resulted from the checkuser request was available to everyone. All I did was to mention the findings on Wikiversity. I'm not convinced that really fits with your suggestion that I "should not be trusted to responsibly make use of information obtained by checkuser". Adambro 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"All I did was to mention the findings on Wikiversity." <-- That is an understatement. What you seem to repeatedly fail to acknowledge is that everyone can see what you did. Adambro, why did you decided to reveal my IP address? Why did you start a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? --JWSchmidt 21:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have now gone onto criticising my apparent revealing of your IP address rather than use of checkuser data. That is a separate issue. Your IP address did not come from the checkuser request, the only findings that I have been provided in response to my checkuser request are exactly what anyone can see on Meta. I explained in my comment how I determined that was an IP address used by you. That was by making an assessment of the contributions it had made and your response to those. Anyone could do that and it was facilitated by the contributions you had made. If you really were so concerned about your IP address being public then you could and should take more care about ensuring you are logged in and, secondly, not responding in such a way to edits you make by that IP so as to confirm it was you, e.g. changing the IPs signature to your own. I'm not convinced that you are actually as concerned about hiding your IP as you would seem to be judging from your reaction to what you suggest is my revealing of it in light of comments you have made on IRC. Since I am sure you keep logs of IRC, you'll be able to find what you've said but my recollection is that you suggested that you weren't actually very bothered about hiding your IP address. In that context this seems criticism for the sake of it. However, even if you were genuinely concerned about keeping your IP address private, as I've explained, you could have taken a lot more care yourself to ensure that. Adambro 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"You seem to have now gone onto criticising my apparent revealing of your IP address rather than use of checkuser data." <-- Not at all. I don't care about revealing my IP address. I care about the reason why you acted on checkuser date and revealed the IP address of a harmless user account. Adambro, why did you decided to reveal my IP address? Why did you start a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? Is there an echo in here? "criticism for the sake of it" <-- My criticism is because Adambro seems to have learned nothing from this fiasco and will possibly perform this kind of misuse of checkuser data in the future. Adambro, why won't you answer my questions? --JWSchmidt 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps when you withdraw your baseless accusation that I've misused checkuser data I might be more enthusiastic about trying to respond to your questions. Adambro 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Until you provide a sensible reason for you having revealed my IP address, I'm forced to conclude that while making use of checkuser data, you needlessly (H1, good faith), or maliciously (H2), went out of your way to invade the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account. So, did you have a good reason for starting a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? --JWSchmidt 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't butt in, but... "went out of your way to invade the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account" <-- seems to violate (H1). Why not (H1', another good faith possibility) "he made a mistake trying to be to detailed in his post. Didn't realize it would be upsetting, he has been informed and it can now be dropped." Maybe? Maybe not? That is what good faith would mean to me. Thenub314 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

made a mistake....trying to be to detailed.....Didn't realize.....has been informed...now be dropped <-- Thenub314, let me tell you what I think Adambro should have done:
1) nothing.
However, assuming good faith for subconscious recognition of the fact that the Beetlebaum account was mine, having run the check, Adambro should have seen the error of his ways and
2) never mention his misguided checkuser request to anyone.
However, assuming good faith for Adambro believing, without evidence, that Moulton had been banned (this was Adambro's excuse for requesting the checkuser action), I can accept that Adambro might have
3) come to my user talk page and asked me to mark the User:Beetlebaum account as mine.
I would have done so and that would have been the end of the matter. However, rather than do #1 or #2 or #3, Adambro instead
4) created a "Request custodian action" item for the harmless Beetlebaum account. Why did Adambro do that? He wrote, "Since I am aware of some concerns about me taking action relating to JWSchmidt, I would ask that other custodians review this situation and take any action as appropriate." <-- This suggests that Adambro wanted to take Custodian action, but held back, expecting another Custodian to act. Act in what way? I draw a blank, so I have been asking him to explain his action. He refuses to explain. Such a lack of transparency derails my ability to assume good faith. "made a mistake" <-- check. "trying to be to detailed" <-- Why? What purpose was served by Adambro associating a particular IP address with a particular user account? "has been informed" <-- I have no evidence that Adambro understands what he did wrong. "now be dropped" <-- I believe Adambro never should have been made a Custodian and that he has done vast damage to the Wikiversity community since becoming a Custodian, as is being documented at the community review. His record as Custodian1, 2, 3 and #wikiversity-en channel operator and his misguided behavior after obtaining the checkuser results, as discussed here, indicates that he cannot be trusted. Custodians must be trusted members of the Wikiversity community. I think Adambro should explain his actions, but he often fails to answer my questions. It is up to the Wikiversity community to decide how to respond to Adambro's inexplicable and misguided actions. --JWSchmidt 01:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that your ability to assume good faith has been derailed. This exactly makes my point above that you had failed to actually assume it. I will participate in the community review as time allows. Thenub314 19:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Adambro could restore a bit of faith if he started explaining his capricious and damaging actions. --JWSchmidt 07:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser

• This Request in a Nutshell:Rename User:Thekohser to User:Thekohser1, then back to User:Thekohser.

My attention was recently brought to an attempt by a Custodian to gradually rehabilitate Thekohser and work towards successful reintegration into Wikiversity. The usage of an alternate account has led to concerns, and I feel that it would probably be more advisable to unlock the currently globally locked account. I have been informed by Adambro that it is possible that a rename of Thekohser to another name, and then a rename back would disconnect the account from SUL, and remove the global lock. I am asking for consensus for a bureaucrat to perform this action, and settle the question once and for all. This would not affect the current block on that account, but if successful, would allow the community to decide if he should be unblocked. Geoff Plourde 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for right now. I put forth what I am looking for at the moment from Thekohser. We need to follow a structure plan for those who were banned to verify their intent to resume editing at this community in an appropriate manner. Too many people are jumping from A to C while ignoring B. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My request has to do with the global lock, not the local block. I am led to believe that the global lock can be undone through two renames. If this is the case, we can have these users rehabilitated through their original accounts, rather than having them use alternate accounts. Geoff Plourde 20:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct, Geoff. That maneuver has just been demonstrated to work. The global SUL lock can indeed be locally defeated, thus restoring home rule to the projects. User:Moulton 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I note Ottava's comments at User talk:Ethical Accountability suggesting that Thekohser makes contributions via that talk page. That is similar to Abd's suggestion for Thekohser to demonstrate useful contributions beyond his talk page. However, I would question the value of either in really showing whether it would be appropriate to unblock Thekohser. I am not in any doubt that Thekohser could make useful contributions if he so wished. It isn't clear to me that anyone has suggested he wouldn't. The issue of whether he should be unblocked is more to do with his behaviour and his judgement in considering what may or may not be appropriate topics to cover on Wikiversity. Thekohser can and has as part of Abd's procedure, shown that he can make useful contributions but I'm not sure what that or contributing via his talk page really achieves. If contributing usefully is the requirement for Thekohser or anyone else to be unblocked then we might as well unblock him now since he or anyone else could play along and pass that test if they wanted to be unblocked. The question is not whether he would or could make useful contributions. The question is whether they would be overshadowed by other issues, such as the way he interacts with others or his judgement in assessing the appropriateness of a particularly topic. What we really have to do is to assess his behaviour and consider whether it would be a problem. What was history of contributions before the block, during the block, and what is the current position now? Where there have been issues, do we think he has changed or can we develop measures to deal with any such issues reoccurring? My personal opinion is that Thekohser shouldn't be unblocked. That view is formed on the basis of his contributions before he was blocked, his conduct whilst he was blocked, and a judgement of his current position. I think I have previously explained my view of his past contributions, both whilst blocked and before that, but perhaps I should explain my judgement of Thekohser's current position. It has been my view for a long time that Thekohser's sudden enthusiasm for Wikiversity is less about developing useful learning resources and more about trying to win one over on Jimbo, who was responsible for the original block and with whom Thekohser seems to have had a long running feud. This was today reinforced by another of Thekohser's comments on Wikipedia Review where he's said "...just settle the matter between me and my nemesis Jimmy Wales, once and for all. If I "behave" on Wikiversity, I win and Jimmy loses. If I can't "behave", then I lose and Jimmy wins. If I "behave", but then Jimmy re-introduces himself into the battle, then I really, really win and Jimmy really, really looks like a pathetic loser." So to conclude, my position is that Thekohser shouldn't participate here but, if there is community consensus that he should be allowed, that he use his original proper User:Thekohser. I also don't believe the experiments to determine whether he can or will produce some useful content are particularly useful in determining whether he should be unblocked. If the community believes that he will behave appropriately then he should be unblocked. Adambro 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Thekohser did nothing wrong. He should be unblocked/unlocked immediately, asked to forgive the horrible treatment he has been subjected to by misguided Wikimedia functionaries and allowed to return to full participation at Wikiversity. An end should be put to the barbaric and disruptive practice of blocking Wikiversity community members. It is obvious that those who abuse their sysop tools by imposing unjustified blocks can't be trusted beyond blocking obvious vandals. All other block decisions need to be made by community consensus. --JWSchmidt 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Adambro. I don't know why some people are so keen to "rehabilitate" people like Moulton and Thekohser, both of whom have long track records of trolling. Even if I did see the worth in rehabilitation, I just don't think the Wikiversity community is currently robust enough to be able to absorb the kinds of drama that they are associated with. Wikiversity has been deeply damaged by Moulton's arrival in 2008 and the subsequent failure to 'manage' his presence. (JWSchmidt is entirely wrong in suggesting that any of this is due to a gang of Wikipedians or rogue admins/bureaucrats, as he is wont to claim.) I would much rather we focus our efforts on rehabilitating the Wikiversity community - to come to consensus about what we want to do here and what we're about. Those with track records of trolling, or with points to prove, will not help that process. I've always wanted Wikiversity to be an open, tolerant and welcoming place, but long and painful experience tells me that there are some people whose presence will not be conducive to such conditions. Cormaggio ^talk 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cormaggio, Neither do I know why some people are so keen to "follow the lead of" the number one troll on wikiland... [and so on, practically verbatim.] Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Moulton and Thekohser, both of whom have long track records of trolling" <-- Cormaggio, your track record for accusing people of trolling is now a matter for community review. Cormaggio, please list examples of Moulton's trolling or retract your accusation that Moulton has a long track record of trolling." "I don't know why some people are so keen to "rehabilitate" people like Moulton and Thekohser" <-- I agree, since they have done nothing wrong. The user accounts of Moulton and Thekohser should be unblocked/unlocked and they should be allowed to return to normal participation as Wikiversity community members. "Wikiversity has been deeply damaged by Moulton's arrival in 2008" <-- This is a misrepresentation of events. Moulton participated at Wikiversity as an expert in online learning communities and a valued member of the Wikiversity community. He was then viciously harassed by sock puppets from Wikipedia on a declared mission to get Moulton banned. A gang of Wikipedians disrupted Wikiversity. Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus by someone who had been gamed into taking unwise action. Wikiversity needs to protect itself from such outside sources of disruption and protect honest and innocent Wikiversity community members. --JWSchmidt 15:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton might have been biased, but wikiversity does allow bias so long as points of views are made explicit. The pan-wikimedia saga is long, but within the wikiversity epsiode, it was the still-unclaimed sock puppet User:Salmon of Doubt who started to turn the soup sour, firing the first rounds of personal attacks, and saying up front that his goal was to get moulton banned on wikiversity. He subsequently got custodial tools for a time and then disappeared. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We know who Salmon of Doubt was. I received the information in 2009. Apparently, SB Johnny had the info from the beginning. I can't reveal things publicly on Wikiversity but there is something on Wikipedia Review that says who the socks were. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrongo! Didn't know then, don't know now. I'll ask on WR though, because I've always wondered! --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have IRC logs from the involved parties saying otherwise if anyone wants to see how SB Johnny is blatantly lying again. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Horse hockey. I assure you: have no idea who he/she was. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you only had dozens of shared page edits with them, worked with them regularly at WR, chatted with them under both names on IRC in multiple channels, and they stated that you were told by them and by KC who they were. Funny how you suddenly feign ignorance. It is amazing to look back at your interaction under his primary name on WR to see how it all makes sense, especially regarding your statements with him about Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much postmodernism and christianity on Wikiversity

The problems on Wikiversity regarding the fights among users has to do with an ongoing attack by postmodernists and christians on Wikiversity as an institution. My proposal is to strengthen scientific knowledge within Wikiversity. Another proposal is to ban for eternity those users who continuously attack other users and use a postmodern kind of language that makes civil discussions impossible. Also those who support these users should be banned. The support for science should be of prime consideration instead of simply focusing on whether someone has a specific background as a professor at a university. Personally i am also in favour of art and culture, but i think it would be wise to advance science first and foremost.Daanschr 11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How To Build A Pykrete Bong

Why did someone import the above page? Did someone bother to read it first? This diff just revealed one problem among many. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the reasons why it was deleted originally. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to see from the edit history that it was imported by User:Diego Grez following this request. You might wish to direct your questions to Diego Grez in the first instance. Adambro 13:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)