User talk:JWSchmidt/Second half 2008 discussions

Note: this is an archive of old discussions. Please do not edit this page. Continue these discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt. There are other archives at User talk:JWSchmidt/Discussion archive.

genopsych

May see my update on genopsych. DMR.

responded --JWSchmidt 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

genopsych

Dear JW Schmid, I think the following subjects are relevant to understand genopsych [1] plant neurobiology and intelligence [2] intelligent behavior of microorganism [3] intuition and instinctual behavior [4] physiological changes due to psychological[ hypnosis, placebo effect and phenomenon like autotomy ] decisions [5] self assembling materials , memory metals etc [6] entropy to creation of new information [7] brain processes [8] information processing within genome [8] random and non random variations , statistical process control [9] Shannon Entropy. DMR Sekhar,79.173.221.246 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

ping. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

-) ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moodle Sanbox

Hi JWSchmidt. I am interested in a Moodle Sandbox course for create some resources for on Moodle and how to use it. I would like this course ASAP. Can you let me know if this is at all possible? Thanks so much. Jgetz 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal talk:Wiki Scholar/About the movie#the “versity” part

ping, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia

Welcome to the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia project. May I recommend that you copy one or more of your user subpages to project space as learning resources there? WAS 4.250 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

off on a tangent a bit......

just caught up on the ethics project latest, and wandered by Salmon's talk page and noticed your most recent post there - which led me here because I thought I'd share a couple of my thoughts on the bigger picture issue of the whole ID thing. These are totally a propos nothing in particular, and usual disclaimers apply! (just my thoughts, no biggie etc. etc.)

I first wandered into the intelligent design article many years ago (as User:Petesmiles) for reasons lost to me in the mists of time (probably as a result of reading Dawkins? not sure.....) - and enjoyed chatting and editing there, though the learning curve was fairly steep, I wasn't surprised that it was a heated, contentious area, and I do feel that the actual article itself is actually very good.

To cut a long back-story short, one of the weird things that becomes clear (and took me a while to 'get') is that the proponents of the modern movement 'Intelligent Design' really are all associated with one particular institute - the reasons for this are a little bit circular in some ways - but it's really interesting to examine that assertion, and when I do, I find I basically agree with it. One particular bit of your note to Salmon stood out to me a bit - which was " many scientists are skeptical about the power of Darwinian natural selection to account for everything we see in the biosphere" - because I'm just not really sure that that actually is the case... you're probably aware of w:Project Steve, which is a tongue in cheek response to some of the variously framed attempts to question evolution. It's my belief that the vast (vast) majority of scientific opinion supports evolution, which in my lay understanding I'm treating synonymously with 'darwinian natural selection'.

I believe a siege mentality can cause severe harm in wiki editing culture, and indeed may well have caused harm at certain article groups.... I kind of also believe that progress lies in allowing systems to take the strain from / combat agenda-driven pressure in certain areas, because it's definitely there. It's hard to avoid a siege mentality when you're under siege! :-)

Ethics are of course vital in this area, but we're also wandering off into all sorts of other areas, which I'm happy to do! - I hope you don't mind me wandering by and rambling a bit - in other news, I came across some very interesting ethics-related conversation on en wiki earlier, and may have a word with some folk about bringing some material over here..... :-) cheers, Privatemusings 08:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not as insignificant a tangent as one might imagine. Archimedes, who is venerated as the First Engineer, explained the use of the Lever thusly, "Give me a place to stand and I will move the world."

That tangent into Intelligent Design turns out to be a longer lever, more fulsomely fulcrumated, than I had previously appreciated. After finding all the IP edits of Rosalind Picard (some via her MIT VPN login, some from her Sabbatical-year office at Boston College, and some from home on her residential RCN cable service), we accumulate the following integrated collection of Picardian edit summaries on her own en:WP BLP:

Picard IP Edit Summaries

• 23:20, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ (focus on the entry)
• 23:19, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ (the deleted material has nothing to do with the person in the entry)
• 22:35, June 29, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ ("anti-evol" is POV of the writer. the organizers of the petition support many aspects of evolution such as microevolution so to label it anti-evolution is an attempt to sell more newspapers)
• 23:29, April 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ (Read the petition. Calling it anti-evolution is not accurate, even if the NYT tried to label it that way.)
• 23:24, April 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ (→Intelligent Design Support: The petition does NOT say anything about intelligent design. Read the petition.)
• 00:21, March 31, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ (→Showing Skepticism and Asking for Critical Examination of Evidence)
• 15:28, March 13, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosalind Picard ‎ (→Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence)

The above edit summaries make it abundantly clear that Picard's on-Wiki complaint (spanning 11 months from March 2006 to February 2007) coincides in substance and detail with my complaint (spanning 13 months from August 2007 to September 2008), that the Picard BLP erroneously connects her (and the notorious petition) to Intelligent Design, and utterly fails to apprehend the text of the 2001 pre-publication petition, as circulated in private E-Mail among academics, to be a sincere and sober call for rigorous adherence to the protocols of the Scientific Method when examining the evidence for any theory.

Moulton 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Deletion request

As far as I can tell this template doesn't work, how does one specify the reason for deletion in a call to the template? It isn't clear why "the reason for deletion must be given on the template". Adambro 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to enter into a sensible discussion about your thoughts about Template:Deletion request on its talk page please. Adambro 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

SLP

I saw your plan for a song called "SLP". What does "SLP" mean? --Trout of Doubt 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice nic! I'm still working on the song. Right now I'm thinking that the song will be a kind of puzzle to illustrate how learning can take place at Wikiversity. The meaning of "SLP" will probably remain a puzzle to be solved, so I'm reluctant to spoil the fun of solving the puzzle by telling you the answer. Come to Wikiversity:Chat or Wikiversity:Teamspeak....there is someone else there who knows what "SLP" is and who might be willing to tell you. I'll say this, the song is not meant to be mean or to discourage anyone from coming to Wikiversity. The song is a learning project. --JWSchmidt 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Requests for_Deletion#Wikiversity:Student union

ping: did you see the "Further thoughts" ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent Action Required

It is imperitive that you, as the only currently active custodian, block User:Daniel Brandt‎ immediately. Salmon of Doubt 13:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll also need to delete his user and usertalk pages, and then protect his user talk page. Salmon of Doubt 14:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Look like someone used User:Daniel Brandt‎ as a disguise, as it doesn't look like the real Daniel Brandt‎. Dzonatas 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Student union

I suggest to move the discussion over to Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikiversity/Case_Studies/Deletionism instead of a edit war. Perhaps, a DPL could be created for active discussion and a link added to the student union page to the DPL. Fair? Dzonatas 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk...

Hello JWSchmidt, are you willing to meet in chat so we can talk alltogether ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Hopefully in the upcoming week I'll have some IRC time.

I'm just browsing the state of the union, and will try pinging a few people here and there, to see what is up and what I can do. Glad to see you are back though. :) Historybuff 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:I want a pony!.jpg

licence difference: Image talk:I want a pony!.jpg, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Introduce teachingforthefuture interview of JWS.m4a.OGG

What licence should this be ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

fixed. I still think it is silly that the upload system lets people upload without selecting a license. --JWSchmidt 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Babel pt not working properly?

Hi, thank you for the welcome. I went to set my User page and when trying to set the pt-3 in Babel template it fails with an error. I checked and the template exists, yet it does not seem to accept anything but straight "pt". Any ideas? -- Alexf 22:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism versus air-conditioner

Hi, John. Let us be a little unseriously imaginatively philosophical. I often like to define "evil" as "destroying/destruction of information" (instead of "un-godly" which some theologians like), for any act of destruction of information increases entropy in the world.

Very often we see resources that pass the test of deletionism become stronger. So, perhaps, deletionism (working in the same way as an air-conditioner) may destroy some information, but in the same time make a smaller part of wikiversity more orderly? Hillgentleman|Talk 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Physics w:Entropy is a measure of useful energy in thermodynamic theory. It is commonly misunderstood as a measure of w:disorder; but consider the case of a drop of water versus the snowflakes that that drop can create when it possesses less available energy. There is more order. w:Information is another thing altogether from available energy or from the other thing, order. Information is related to the unexpected or unpredicted so that a series of a thousand recorded coin flips has both disorder and information (mostly useless, but information and w:knowledge and w:understanding are yet each different things); while pi (3.14...) has a predictable sequence, thus less information (yet has far more use). See w:Entropy (information theory) for more information on this. WAS 4.250 06:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you see these comments ?

Talk:Albanian sea port history, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

category:History

Please never put anything in this category; I'm working very hard to clear it out right now. If you find an uncategorized History page (or category), please place it in Category:Unsorted History Projects (and tell me the first time you do this; I'll file that category away in the right spot), and try to get the individual pages where they go. Thanks. The Jade Knight 05:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

garbage

John, On your description "good faith edits by wikiversity participants are garbage" If I use the definition from merriam-webster dictionary online: garbage=food waste, discarded or useless material, trash, inaccurate or useless data [1], (reading the word "garbage" without emotional content) people do contribute innaccurate and useless data to wikivesity. Surely we may say that, if somebody creates an empty page, like blackhole and goes away, it would show that she is interested in the subject, and it is not useless information. In that case, let me say "almost useless". Hillgentleman|Talk 06:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RE your request for notifications

The following diffs include notifications of Moulton's various blocks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=153398366&oldid=153362905 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=157214521&oldid=157213483

The reblock by Yamla was procedural and required no notice (previous unblock was "restricted unblock to facilitate current Request for Arbitration" which was rejected) The reblock by FeloniousMonk was procedural and required no notice (previous unblock was "unblock to change duration," but duration was not changed) The reblock by Blueboy96 was procedural and required no notice (previous unblock was "to allow SUL merging," SUL was merged)

Hope that helps! Salmon of Doubt 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject study before editing

Hi John,

Which article, or couple of articles would you like to choose as participant of this project?--Daanschr 06:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that Moulton also likes to choose those articles. So, i will take a look at them as well. I don't think we will be able to acquire additional participants, but we will see.

Is everything alright with you, given the fuss with McCormack?--Daanschr 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that there was no information anymore about that a topic would be chosen a year in advance before editing, so participants have the chance to read themselves into the topic. Also, the present topics may be too obscure to have such formal arrangement. I do like to have a list of literature though, which we can use for the discourse.--Daanschr 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, i favour to choose one central major topic and to edit several obscure articles related to this topic.--Daanschr 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict and incivility

Hi John, thanks for joining the Learning from conflict and incivility project, and adding your thoughts from your blog. I wonder though: would you like to reflect more - personally - on some of your comments/actions, especially those that have caused obvious offence? Have you thought about the possible consequences of calling someone a "little kid" (for example)? Also, I think your pretence of anonymity in the Student union conflict is unnecessary - I think there's nothing wrong with being personal, provided it takes place within civility and assuming good faith. Cormaggio ^talk 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I'd echo SB_Johnny below in asking you to please be more civil - to which I'd add "self-reflective". You ask me to provide a list of examples of where you've caused offence, which I would view as more appropriate for the Learning from conflict and incivility project than your talk page. I'd simply ask however, are you not aware that you have been causing offence? On calling someone a "little kid", you insinuated as much in the "I want a pony" discussion in your blog post (above). However, I'd admit it wasn't the best specific example (especially in the context of Salmon's "I want a pony" comments) - even though I'd still encourage you to be more reflective about your role here. To clarify my comment on the "pretence of anonymity in the Student union conflict", I was referring to your commentary on: "this particular participant (I'm not allowed to use his name)". As I said, I don't see anything wrong with critiquing and naming people, provided you do so in a way that is "fair" - ie being civil, assuming good faith, and not making any deliberate provocations that could be seen as an "attack" - even though this is often difficult to define, and different people have different thresholds. Cormaggio ^talk 08:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I'd say SB_Johnny and I have been asking you to not be so hostile. I'd say we have been asking you - as a reasonable person - to acknowledge that, judging by the fact there has been so much conflict around your actions, that you might have the good reason to take a step back and consider how you might have contributed to the escalation of this conflict. This is what I set up the Learning from conflict and incivility project for, and this is why I have tended towards identifying instances of incivility as a group activity, and not solely on your talk page. I'd never expect you to read my mind - though I wish you might show more self-awareness. Cormaggio ^talk 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Profiles

Please take a look at this and provide a response (on its or my talk page only). My goal is accuracy; I understand that some examples and explanations may still be lacking; it is only the beginning of an outline. But as it involves you, I would like your opinion. Note: a single example "counts" as far as willingness to do something, for this project. The Jade Knight 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude!

John, please take a day or two to calm down... I don't know what's gotten into you, but it's painful to watch. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem calm to me, and I'm not going to try to have a discussion with you while you're acting like this. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just said, "I want a pony". How does that help build dialog and understanding? --JWSchmidt 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want a pony, I want my friend to stop embarrassing himself, and I'm worried that if I try to have a conversation with you that you'll treat me like you've been treating others (i.e., badly).

Just as an aside, I'll be picking up a load of pony poo tomorrow (weather permitting), and will try to take a pic or two... might be a fun image to explain why I don't want a pony. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• When I was about 12 I saw a television show about a poker game. One of the players was having bad luck and started stealing chips out of the bank without buying them. Another player, sitting across the table was the first to notice. He quietly held up a small mirror so that everyone at the table could see the other player steal some more chips. Everyone else then started to attack the person who had held up the mirror. All I'm doing at Wikiversity is holding up a mirror, but you think I'm embarrassing myself. Okay, I understand. This is the same culture made famous at Wikipedia...rather than look in the mirror, complain about the person who is holding up the mirror. --JWSchmidt 16:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• John, nobody is going to look at the mirror when the person holding it is throwing turds at the people who are supposed to be looking at it. Even the bystanders are going to be busy watching out for ricocheting turds. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you say I am "throwing turds" or that I am displaying "absolutely atrocious behavior", but you can make these claims about me, and when challenged to support your claims, you just say, "I'm not going to talk to you." Tell me specifics about what you are calling "absolutely atrocious behavior", then we can discuss it. Until you become communicative, I'm just dodging the turds you are throwing. --JWSchmidt 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the specifics, and will post them up soon. I had hoped that some input from your fellow users saying "yes, please stop" would be sufficient, but if you really need to do the whole RfC/ArbCommish thing, we can do it that way. It would be much better for everyone if you would just take some time to cool off instead. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"the whole RfC/ArbCommish thing" <-- why not just simple conversation and open dialog? --JWSchmidt 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "conversations and open dialogs" of late don't lead me to believe there's much to be gained, because your responses to any criticism have been at best erratic, at worst irrational. If you give up your bits, I'll gladly try discussing things with you, but right now I'm genuinely concerned about how you will react and am therefore wary of engaging with you. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"your responses to any criticism have been at best erratic, at worst irrational" <-- Please provide evidence to support this claim. --JWSchmidt 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, hard way then. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"hard way then" <-- That's the path you intend to take. The "hard way" is your choice. I still want to talk, but you refuse. --JWSchmidt 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I intend to take the best possible path to achieve the best result. When you say "Please provide evidence to support this claim.", you point to the hard way, because you're suggesting that you don't think the way you've been treating people is inappropriate. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Please provide evidence to support this claim." <-- this is a common way to ask for information during a conversation. Please assume good faith rather than invent negative interpretations of the possible meaning of my words. I'm a scientist. If I ask for evidence it means I would like to see the evidence. Is there something wrong with having this particular evidence examined? If so, please explain what that problem is. --JWSchmidt 17:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(← reset tabs) John, you can see evidence here and here, which is what we were discussing in the first place. If you don't see why there's a problem there, just give up your bits and I'll do my best to see you through it as a moderator. I assume Moulton will give me a good reference as a moderator of good faith. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed those two links. User:KillerChihuahua was critical of the contents of this page. I responded by inviting her to join the research project and explain her objections. User:Cormaggio commented on "the toxic, sarcastic, aggressive culture that we're seeing more and more of these days - and which you are very much contributing to". In my response I said that I was interested to hear suggestions from Cormaggio for alternatives to what he views as "toxic" culture. I wish you would explain how these responses are "erratic, at worst irrational". I don't think its fair for you to adopt the position that you are obviously correct in you views so you do not need to explain your views. I've repeatedly, in good faith, asked you to explain your views. Explaining your position, when asked to do so, is a normal part of human communication. I'm willing to fully discuss my views and my actions. I cannot read other people's minds, divine their unspoken desires and then automatically do that they want me to do. If someone says, "there's a problem" then I think it is fair for me to ask them to tell me what they think the problem is. Once I hear what other people are thinking then we can have a conversation and sort things out. I view this as the conventional and rational approach, an approach enshrined in the justice system of the country I've always lived in. --JWSchmidt 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

John, please just give up your bits. Just imagine: when people get pissed at you, they'll complain to me, and then I'll ask you what you really meant, and then I'll be there backing you up. Conversations will go a lot more smoothly when people aren't scared of you: everyone knows that I'm an equal opportunity "despot" when a despot is needed (or perceived to be needed) :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Guys, why not use the chat ? You can still publish the log later if you want, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Erkan, I wish that were a good answer, but I feel pretty strongly that the atmosphere on the IRC channel is no longer constructive. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Student union

I've merged Wikiversity:Student Union to Wikiversity:Student union the entire history has been restored, I sincerely apologies for any problems this may have caused. DarkMage 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if "Wikiversity:Student Union" follows the page name conventions. --JWSchmidt 12:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Permission

I, Ottava Rima, give JWSchmidt permission to revoke any use of my tools during my probationary period. Ottava Rima 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S., I would give him permission to revoke them after, and to ban me willy nilly, if I didn't think the power would go to his head. I'm just kidding. :) Ottava Rima 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. I only block vandals. As far as I can tell, bans are futile. --JWSchmidt 04:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's three day trial

I have posted this on multiple pages - Please see this. I would like to try and have Moulton work on this task and have him refrain from the escalating actions. I would ask that you monitor but respect Moulton's work at this time, and take any complaints or concerns directly to me. There will be a peer review process at the end, and I believe that this process will be most effective after he is complete and in the manner that I put forth. I am requesting that Moulton only edit on this project during this time, and I would like if you could show him the courtesy in not furthering any dispute with him until after the process is over, and that we are all able to discuss this project. If that is too much to ask for, please contact me, and I will see how I can accommodate your needs. Thank you, and please pass the word to any that I may have forgotten and this may pertain to. Ottava Rima 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! --JWSchmidt 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD

Your image is tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion. Is there a compliant version on Wikicommons? Or is there any further information that you can add to satisfy this request? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I think you could justify at least some of the pages in the way that Wikipedia justifies the page. Please place a link to the Wikipedia version of the file. If you put in fair use rationale, I believe you can justify removing the CSD. It should go through standard deletion review and not speedy, but I will let you rationalize it first and see if anyone comes by and has further problems with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair procedure and posting statements

Hi, JWS. Following your concerns above, I have further modified the page (in line with earlier intentions) to provide you with appropriate sections to post your material. There are now sections below the evidence sections where you can post or transclude a general statement. In addition, you have the links provided higher up the page if you wish to record objections to the introductory statements on the page. If you require the creation of further appropriate venues for your materials, please let me know and I will help with integration. --McCormack 10:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have modified my user talk page (in line with earlier intentions) to provide you with appropriate sections to post your material. If you require the creation of further appropriate venues for your materials, please let me know and I will help with integration. --JWSchmidt 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Day 1 Reflections

3) There is one Wikiversity participant who does not want to provide a link at the top of the Main Page to the main student portal page. I think Wikiversity should have such a link. <---- What do you mean by this?. Is it the main Wikiversity:Main Page you meant, if you want feel free to provide a link - or I could, if you could explain what you mean. DarkMage 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese fire drill

This made me smile. The Jade Knight 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to talk about these things with me. I tend (generally) not to take grievances to user pages, but to keep them at talk pages, and relate them directly to the material at hand. Of course, there's a point where some discussion at the talk page could only help…

I hope you'll forgive me if I'm terribly straightforward: There are a few things you've done at Wikiversity which have really bothered me. I recognize that you simply view the goals of Wikiversity somewhat differently than I do, and you use different methods to try to achieve those goals than I do; I understand that you aren't trying to be a horrible contributor, etc. I talk about this somewhat on my Learning from conflict and incivility page. However, I am bothered by some of the tools you use to support your views of Wikiversity.

In particular, I am bothered by your pointed "learning projects" which are designed to be arguments against certain ideologies. I am bothered by your explicit and implicit condemnation of individuals, particularly on prominent pages. I am bothered that you seem unaware that your concept of Wikiversity is only one of many. And, most of all, I am bothered by your use of straw man arguments. This last thing is especially disturbing to me, because straw men, while rhetorically effective, are dishonest. And while the rest of your actions could be explained by simple honest differences of opinion and feelings that there is a need to push your view of Wikiversity, I have a very hard time imagining that a good faith user would think dishonesty would be an appropriate tool to support his views. The Jade Knight 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• 'I assume you are making reference to my "pointed" editing that arises from the fact that I think Wikiversity should welcome new contributors and help them learn to edit' —The problem is that several editors here (including myself) feel that your projects do the opposite; that they make certain users feel very unwelcome at Wikiversity. Part of the problem is that what is silly to one may be extremely offensive to others; for example, think of the Muhammad cartoons. Part of being welcoming at Wikiversity is to show respect to others. Free speech may also be an important part of it, but it is not the only part; free speech can be very unwelcoming, as well, depending on what is being said. Respect is important.
• I don't mind certain projects here being called "parody", either, but I do oppose projects which make parodies of other Wikiversity users, especially if such parodies are not clearly labelled as such. In particular I am opposed to such parodies being located at major portals. Again, this is a matter of respect (and a matter of setting the proper tone for new Wikiversity participants). Remember that parodies (especially satires) can be very hurtful. Many people have been killed over them.
• "I do not feel that I have a role to play in condemning editors" —Satire condemns; I think it is important that you realize this. While it may be better for individuals to just "talk to you", creating your "pointed" projects which mock other users and then expecting them to just come talk to you is about the equivalent of elbowing someone in the ribs and expecting them to just come "talk to you" about it. If you want people to talk calmly, you're better off using other forms of object lessons (and doing more direct talking to them).
• "I'm sure there are many other differences between my view of Wikiversity and the views of others" —indeed there are. And yours is not the "canonical" view (no one's is). Please remember that.
• A Modest Proposal was satire, and it shocked and offended many people, including a few who understood that it was satire, and especially those who did not. To assign the words in A Modest Proposal to anyone at the time would have been considered extremely offensive and rude (no one, including Swift, would have considered such actions welcoming). That said, what Swift wrote was, if one understood that it was not serious, terribly funny. I don't think anyone here at Wikiversity has found any of your straw man arguments funny. Part of the reason is that you are using straw men arguments in the process of logical discourse. A Modest Proposal was absurd, and clearly so; your comments appear to have been written to mislead the reader in such a way so that your own particular viewpoint will be given greater esteem. You may have intended to write like Swift, but what you have written comes across not as brilliant comedy, but as dishonest, self-serving argument. You may want to reconsider your use of loaded rhetoric in the future, as it is most likely only to offend.
• Again, in a situation of rational discourse, straw men arguments are veiled lies. When you are making an argument, it is very important that you present your opponent's arguments in as fair and neutral a manner as possible, if you intend to be honest. If you are going to create a satire, make sure that everyone is well aware that you are making satire. And please realize that The Colloquium is not an appropriate place for satire. Neither is the student union. Neither is someone else's serious historical project. Neither are talk pages. Frankly, if you intend to welcome people to Wikiversity, then given your apparent current perceptions of what is and is not appropriate for Wikiversity, you need to be thinking a lot more about how to avoid offending people than you do about ensuring that their contributions* are in line with your vision of Wikiversity.

*Administrative edits, including RfD's, are still contributions in the minds of most users. The Jade Knight 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

…and I want to apologize if I come across as overly hard. I must say I've been significantly irked by some of these things lately, and so when writing about them I may not appear as calm as I otherwise might wish to. I'm not trying to offend, and I apologize if my tone seems rude. The Jade Knight 08:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you reading and responding to my comments. I hope that you'll try to take a more gentler tack when dealing with conflict in the future; I think we should discuss the whole mess vs. being rude to newcomers issue more; I do believe a compromise can be reached on this issue, but it will take a little compromising on everyone's parts, I think. I think I understand your goals better, and why you did what you did. For me, it didn't work well at all; it is important to me when engaged in a discussion or debate that my opponent be rhetorically honest—and as somewhat who has taught Writing, I notice rhetorical devices fairly quickly. I'm not opposed to there being parody on Wikiversity, but building community is essential, and when other participants feel mocked, it hurts that sense of community. At any rate, thanks for spending the time to respond to my concerns. The Jade Knight 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though I think we generally need guidelines for how to deal with pages like those. I realize that your goal is to encourage new users. My goal is to direct new users to real content; not by deleting their pages, but by funnelling them to good content, instead of "stub"/empty content. Make sense? Using the Training namespace could be part of this plan. Part of it could be awareness: encouraging people to put the "Training" template (when it's made) instead of voting DR. And part of it is making sure "training" projects don't get stuck in the main categories at Browse. Anyway, we should discuss this more with the community at large. The Jade Knight 06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanked page(s) at ethics project

To avoid an edit war, I put a DR on your page: Wikipedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation. If you wish to immediately keep the content, I suggest to move it to your userspace, and you may remove the DR tag once moved to your userspace. I hope this was fair. Dzonatas 19:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

question

"a canvassed checkuser nomination" <-- what does this mean? --JWSchmidt 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It means exactly what I said it is. -- Cat ^chi? 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

this is terrible in my book :-(

so it falls to me to leave a note saying that you're indefinitely blocked at the moment? - I'm chatting on IRC to try and get a picture of the goings on. I'm really hoping that you can somehow continue to take this as a learning experience on some level! - though in my book it's a terrible for the health of the community. It'll come out in the wash, I'm sure (well - I hope...) :-) Privatemusings 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. If you are in #wikiversity-en, do you have any idea why I am blocked from that channel? "a learning experience" <-- I hope we can all sort this out. Right now, I know nothing. "terrible for the health of the community" <-- why do you say that? Please do not panic, my friend. I look forward to many long years of collaboration with you at Wikiversity, Wikipedia, and other WMF projects. --JWSchmidt 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

there is active discussion as we speak - my take on it is that there was some tension surrounding Moulton, with you not banning him from the channel, despite being asked to? Further - it's been said that you requested links to freenode or WV policy - I think links to WV policy were provided (or offered, or felt that they were provided) - and that your subsequent inaction represented a risk to the IRC channel in some way.....

SB just returned to the channel, and everyone there is having full and open discussion, so hopefully this'll all move towards resolution before too long... Privatemusings 23:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. I've repeatedly made it clear that I only kick/block/ban for vandalism. I do not recognize any obligation to automatically perform kicks/blocks/bans for others upon their request. I proposed that it be formally made policy that there be no release of private/personal information both here at Wikiversity (make Wikiversity:Privacy policy official policy) and in #wikiversity-en (put the rules in the topic). Nobody did anything. My approach was to keep reminding Moulton to not mention personal/private information and I kept pressing him to give up his interest in the real world identities of wiki editors. "full and open discussion" <-- right. --JWSchmidt 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also bothered that you've been blocked; we were just beginning to have productive conversation, I feel... The Jade Knight 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jade Knight. Don't fret, I look forward to many long and happy years of collaborating with you at Wikiversity. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me and teach me. I really appreciate your help. --JWSchmidt 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Teamwork

"his return to teamwork with Moulton and encouraging Moulton to transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org" <-- After Jimbo suggested some changes, that we turn "an eye towards developing principles for dealing with such projects in the future. One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals", I began to think about modifications to the Wikiversity research policy. I take my collaborators as I find them, and Moulton expressed some willingness to help improve the research policy. I asked him to read the research policy and make suggestions for improvements. I would have done exactly the same for anyone who showed an interest in collaborating with me to improve Wikiversity. "encouraging Moulton to transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org" <-- SB_Johnny, Mu301, and Cormaggio: please tell me what you mean by: his "work". --JWSchmidt 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, I mentioned this to you on IRC, but to continue on-wiki): One of the things that concerned me personally was this edit from Moulton, in which I think it's pretty clear that Moulton is not simply intent on collaborating on research guidelines, but also continuing his personal crusade against Wikimedians, by whom he feels aggrieved. (I would note that I absolutely don't begrudge Moulton the right to deal with these issues - even somehow within Wikiversity/Wikimedia - but that I don't think his modus operandi so far has been appropriate to Wikiversity.) I know you've been trying to persuade Moulton from refraining from adding personal information (see also this RCA) - so I wonder if you have any comments or advice here? Cormaggio ^talk 09:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it aids constructive discussion about these kinds of issues if we can refer to specific examples such as: Wikipedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation/Final report. That page is an early draft of a report on problems that can arise in Wikipedia biographies of living persons (BLPs). That page mentions one "throw-away" Wikipedia user account that was created by an experienced Wikipedian who knew that their edits would violate Wikipedia policy. User:Centaur of attention wanted this Wikiversity page to be deleted. Why? According to "Centaur of attention", the report, "casts specific Wikipedians in poor light". The only Wikipedian mentioned in the report was the person who created a "throw-away" account for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy. It could be argued that by discussing this case, the person who violated Wikipedia policy might feel embarrassment, so Wikiversity participants cannot discuss this case. Does that make sense? Wikipedia policy explicitly states that Wikipedians should be on watch for just this kind of attempt to create biased Wikipedia articles. Everyday Wikipedian's who watch BLPs take note of these kinds of problems, discuss them and take action to correct them. Wikipedia is improved by discussing bad editing and existing problems at Wikipedia. Does it really make sense to say that Wikiversity researchers cannot discuss editing problems at Wikipedia because doing so might cause embarrassment? The edit history of Wikipedia is public. There is no reasonable expectation of protection from embarrassment when people edit Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia is a public act and Wikipedia policy calls upon Wikipedia editors to examine the edits of others. I think the key point Moulton was making here is that there can be several reasons why someone might object to a Wikiversity research project. One reason is fear that someone might suffer embarrassment. Another reason is that someone might be trying to prevent Wikipedians from discovering and correcting problems at Wikipedia. Someone who is trying to prevent Wikipedians from discovering and correcting problems at Wikipedia could use the potential for "embarrassment" as an excuse for blocking a Wikiversity research project. I think it is a valid and pertinent question: how do we distinguish between real sources of embarrassment that research policy should prevent and false claims of potential embarrassment that are used as an excuse to cover up problems at Wikipedia? As for Moulton's motivations, he has stated these on his user page. I view his interest in fixing problems with BLPs as an integral part of the on-going efforts of many Wikipedian's to improve Wikipedia. Yes, Moulton has in the past crossed the line here at the English language Wikiversity by violating the spirit of the proposed privacy policy. Jimbo has called for Moulton to be blocked at any WMF project where he crosses that line. Yes, we have to watch Moulton's editing at beta.wikiversity. I asked him to help improve the research policy at beta.wikiversity and as long as he does that, I welcome his help. Besides one name, apparently the real name of a wiki editor, I have never been told what "private information" Moulton is accused of releasing. Since I do not know what to watch for, I made SBJ a custodian at beta.wikiversity. However, I think we are in a situation where no evidence is required to support claims about Moulton releasing "private information". All that is required is an unsupported claim that Moulton has released private information. This is not healthy: it exactly corresponds to conditions of a witch hunt. According to your statement at the Colloquium, your mistaken assumption about why I asked Moulton to edit at beta.wikiversity formed the basis for your decision to block me and remove me from custodianship. I ask you to do what is right and correct your error. I advise you to admit your error, unblock me and return my custodianship. Before you take action to block Moulton from editing at beta.wikiversity, I ask that you actually have verifiable evidence that he has violated policy. --JWSchmidt 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, it's actually impossible to cite specific cases of outing that have been oversighted, because they don't then exist in the page's history. However, here's one example that hasn't yet been dealt with, and which I will now bring to the attention of a steward. You acknowledge that Moulton has crossed the line - and this is what I think we need to do now: to figure out what that line is. (Where are our boundaries as a project and as a community?) I definitely want to have you on board for that, and I'm not happy with your being blocked. However, the decision was not solely based on Moulton's work, or your work with him - as the Colloquium post said, it was based on a multiplicity of factors, listed in the review - and so I'm prepared to stand over it for now, even though it troubles me greatly. Cormaggio ^talk 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"a multiplicity of factors, listed in the review" <-- Before I was blocked, I was working my way through the twisted charges in the "review". I have now been prevented from defending myself against those twisted charges. I ask you to do the honorable thing and unblock me so that I can continue to answer those charges and show the Wikiversity community how twisted they are and that they do not provide justification for blocking me from editing, preventing me from participating in #wikiversity-en and they do not justify removing me from custodianship. For example, the "review" charges that I have been motivated in my Wikiversity participation by attempts to go after my enemies at Wikipedia. Previously, I asked that you list those presumed enemies. I call on you to backup your charges with facts or withdraw them. I don't think it is fair for you to just keep pointing to bodgus charges (particularly charges that I have either challenged or not yet had a chance to respond to) as justification for keeping me blocked from editing. Let's start here: who are my enemies at "Wikipedia and the foundation"? List those enemies or withdraw the charge you made against me. I also ask you to formally, on the Colloquium, retract your insinuating charge that I invited Moulton to "transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org". You know that I did no such thing. I asked Moulton to help modify the research policy in response to Jimbo's suggested changes. --JWSchmidt 16:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I think it would be more useful if, instead of picking holes in criticisms, that you listened more to the intent behind them. I understand that you may feel "under attack" at the moment - which would be an understandable reaction. Maybe you don't agree with the way the "review" is worded; maybe you don't agree with specific points in it. However, I want to reinforce that the "review" and the subsequent action is based on an overall behaviour pattern that I and others have seen as damaging - the substance and detail of which is in the review (though it is partial and imperfect). In a nutshell, what I see as problematic is: 1) your use of strawman arguments (as documented by Jade Knight); 2) "fun" at the expense of others (eg. in the 'Trout of Doubt' page, and certain edits on 'Student Union'); and 3) counter-critiquing, and not listening to criticisms, or taking them on board (as in this whole process of discussing your behaviour). I also know from previous experience that you have a tendency to respond to segments of another's comment/edit, but not always respond to - or in the spirit of - the overall or underlying meaning that the other is trying to convey. So, what I would urge you to do is to reread the review in its entirety, and look for what is being conveyed as specific problems. As I said, I am not happy with your block, but all it's trying to do is to ask you to take a step back from defence/counter-attack, to recognise the problems, and to start a good-faith attempt to address them. (You can start doing so in a separate section on this page if you like - and btw, I'm not saying that you shouldn't counter-critique, but that it would be much more helpful if you weren't so quick to do so right now) When you start this more constructive process (which, I should reinforce, will involve critique of others than yourself), I will actively support your unblock. Cormaggio ^talk 14:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"instead of picking holes in criticisms, that you listened more to the intent behind them" <-- Is it your contention that you can publish false charges against me, use those false charges to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodianship, and then expect me to ignore those false charges because you have good intentions? If so, I reject your position. Your continuing reliance on false charges and your attempt to get me to ignore your misuse of those false charges makes it hard for me to believe that you have good intentions....your actions speak louder than your words. "your use of strawman arguments" <-- I often make use of analogies in order to help people think about a topic. If you reject a particular analogy that I make use of, then feel free to explain why you reject the analogy. If you feel that I misrepresent someone's position, then step in and say where you think I am wrong. "fun" at the expense of others <-- I never edit so as to have fun at the expense of others. If I challenge the actions and views of others, I am doing so because I want to improve Wikiversity. I made the trout of doubt user page in order to explore an analogy....it was mainly a learning exercise for myself. I knew there was a chance that Salmon would see the page, but he had previously expressed unswerving confidence in his user page statement, so I had no reason to expect that he would take offense at my learning exercise. When I made the learning exercise at the student union, I wanted to let Wikiversity participants who self-identify as students know what was going on and that an attempt had been made to delete the student union. I still feel that this is important information to share with Wikiversity participants. In making these learning exercises I was not trying to have fun at the expense of others. "not listening to criticisms" <-- It is truly absurd to try to level this charge against me. I have endlessly asked people to discuss their criticisms with me. I think my discussion with Jade Knight illustrates the value of such discussions. Rather than have fruitful discussions with me, your approach is to post a bunch of false and twisted charges and then ask me to look past the specifics of those charges and read your mind so as to understand your true intent. I can't read your mind. It seems like you do not like some of the learning resources I have crafted at Wikiversity. I stand ready to adjust the types of learning resources I make and which pages they go on when Wikiversity reaches consensus in decisions about page content. Part of the wiki consensus process is stating reasons to support your position. When I have asked for such reasons I have been answered with several variants of: "I do not have to give reasons, if you cannot figure it out for yourself, then there is nothing more I can do". I fail to see "I do not have to give reasons" as the basis for consensus at Wikiversity. If you want me to understand your position you have to explain your position, not just expect me to magically adopt it when I hear it. "I also know from previous experience that you have a tendency to respond to segments of another's comment/edit, but not always respond to - or in the spirit of - the overall or underlying meaning that the other is trying to convey." <-- I do the best I can with what I have. If you feel that I am not responding to your "underlying meaning" then it is important that you talk to me and explain your "underlying meaning". It is really not productive for you to say, "I can't explain my position, so I'll just block you". "recognise the problems, and to start a good-faith attempt to address them" <-- I have already done so. The kind of discussion I have had with Jade Knight (1, 2, 3, 4) is an example of what I stand ready to do with anyone else who has problems with my editing. Unblock me and let me continue that process. --JWSchmidt 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you assumed good faith here. Consider this: When you had that discussion with me, I had originally seen your edits as very damaging and falsely accusatory. You have since assured me that this was your intention. You may see Cormaggio's edits as very damaging and falsely accusatory. He is assuring you that this is not his intention. As I assume good faith of you, you should assume good faith of him, and try to work with him to resolve this in good faith. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"I had originally seen your edits as very damaging and falsely accusatory. You have since assured me that this was your intention." <-- Please provide a link to where I assured you that I intended my edits to be "very damaging and falsely accusatory". "you should assume good faith of him" <-- I initially assumed that Cormaggio might have put his name on false charges against me without being aware that they were false charges, so I explained to Cormaggio what the false charges are. Cormaggio refuses to retract those false charges or even discuss them with me. Are you asking me to assume good faith in Cormaggio's action of making false charges against me and trying to use those false charges to justify blocking me and removing my custodial status? Are you asking me to assume good faith in Cormaggio's action of coming to this page and claiming that he wants to discuss my editing but he refuses to tell me what the "obvious" problems are in my editing? "try to work with him to resolve this" <-- Are you suggesting that I have not been doing so? --JWSchmidt 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(<---)I too have been confused by reading you say "talk to me" and being told, in essence, read my mind. On the other hand your comment "he had previously expressed unswerving confidence in his user page statement, so I had no reason to expect that he would take offense at my learning exercise" demonstrates that you have a mistaken model of human behavior in your mind. Expressed high levels of confidence do not indicate that the person is unlikely to take offense. Think of an animal who perceives a threat making himself appear larger - "puffing himself up". Expressing high levels of confidence is often a clue that the person is feeling threatened. WAS 4.250 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In any event, if there is some interest in developing the faculty of constructing reliable theories of mind (i.e. beliefs, desires, dreads, intentions, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge) of otherwise unseen avatars, perhaps we should launch a workshop and seminar on blind mind-reading in the absence of the usual cues (i.e. visible facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, and other normative nonverbal signals) under the constraint of poker-faced text-telegraphy. —Gastrin Bombesin 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"mistaken model of human behavior" <-- I do not hold that model....this is why I invite wiki participants to use this talk page as a place to discuss any problems they have with my editing. When a scientist such as myself says, "I have no evidence," it does not imply that such evidence does not exist. I'm always ready to listen when people bring new evidence to my attention. --JWSchmidt 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that has been bothering me in our conversation so far is that I am responding to your behaviour with other people, and observing that several other people have been bothered - sometimes deeply hurt - by things you've said and/or done. The evidence for their hurt is in many, many comments about your activity on 'Student union', 'Albanian sea port history', and other pages. Given the fact that this has been explicitly pointed out firstly by the people involved on the talk pages, and within edit summaries; and subsequently on community discussion fora (here and here), I have found your asking for "evidence", and claiming that you are being asked to "read my mind", to be quite disingenuous. I also find it hurtful that you say that I am not prepared to discuss with you. I clearly want to discuss this recent turmoil; I want to discuss yours, mine, and others' roles within it - but the framework of this discussion has to be the plain fact that many people are unhappy with the events that led up to this block. On this note, however, I commend your recent discussion with Jade Knight, and I think it shows a lot of hope. So, I'm trying to take a leaf out of that discussion here.

When I said "fun at the expense of others" - what I mean is that you edit in order to have fun yourself (which, of course, is a good thing), but that you possibly don't always think of the consequences of your actions on others. For example, on the Albanian sea port history page, which contained no content at all, and that had been proposed for deletion - you turned it with these two edits into a personal - and quite ad hominem - "learning project" on 'deletionism'. You say here that you were "having fun being silly", which you apologise for, recognising that not all things are equally funny to everyone. But what concerns me is that you didn't take criticisms (firstly subtle [2] [3], and then more direct) on board at the time, nor recognise that Jade Knight was clearly hurt. I'm concerned that you don't listen to these kinds of concerns; that you require lengthy expositions of this kind (and of the kind Jade Knight has engaged in) in order to respond graciously.

I agree with much of your perspective on page-deletion, and the encouraging of Wikiversity contributors. But I think you sometimes take your perspective too far, and make it too personal. For example, I know you have long disagreed with McCormack, but even still, I think you have been much more hostile and sneering than is called for, or, indeed, than is appropriate for a civil environment. Just to take one example, do you think this was an appropriate response to the deletion debate? (I, incidentally, don't.) Do you think that there are people who want to actively "suppress" good faith contributions to Wikiversity? If so, can you show me examples of this?

Reading back over some of what I'm writing here, I seem to have taken a similar tone to what I have done so far (above), and that has seemingly provoked you further (even though I was intending the opposite). However, I hope you can read this in the light of a critical friend - I am trying to get you to step back from conflict in order to reflect on your own role in it. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear with you, and I'm sorry for forcing you into this temporarily blocked situation. As I've said before I think it's far from ideal, and I also acknowledge I've made mistakes in this process. I think what we need to do is to acknowledge our mistakes as part of recognising the cause of our recent problems. That is precisely what this block is attempting to do - albeit quite clumsily. So, I urge to stop calling "false charges", and instead looking to understand why people are saying these things to/about you - whether or not you believe you were justified, or that the "charges" are unjustified. Cormaggio ^talk 13:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that no one is happy with this block. (If I am mistaken, then I would be grateful if someone — anyone — would stand up and say, "I am happy with this block.") If it is in fact the case that no one is happy with this block, then it occurs to me that (unless Wikiversitans are masochists) it would behoove the community to stand down from this block and return to the status quo ante. There is a reason pencils come with erasers on the other end. If it was a mistake to block John in the first place, then it is an even bigger mistake not to erase the original error. —Albatross 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate for you to be posting in this discussion ATM, and I seriously doubt it helps your case for you to be making it here in light of everything else going on, Moulton. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"I have found your asking for 'evidence', and claiming that you are being asked to 'read my mind', to be quite disingenuous" <-- I find it strange that you can lecture me about the benefits of being aware and sensitive while you are yourself are so unaware and insensitive. I completely reject your false charge that when I ask for evidence I am in some way not straightforward or candid in my requests for information. For example, when you came to this page and requested that I "reflect more - personally - on some of your comments/actions, especially those that have caused obvious offence", I responded on your talk page with a request for clarification: "I think it would be useful if you made a list of "those that have caused obvious offence" then I can comment about what you put into the list". That was a simple request for clarification from you about something that you might feel is "obvious", but which is not obvious to me. How long would it have taken you to make such a list and place it on my user talk page? Five minutes? Ten? Not very long. But you are in a position where you need not explain what you are talking about because it is "obvious". Since what you are talking about is by your very own definition "obvious", it is also "obvious" that I must know what you are talking about. Fine, you hold all the cards. You get to define what is obvious. Apparently you can read my mind and you think you know that I understand what you are thinking and you think you know that I am being deceptive when I ask for clarification of what you are talking about. Have fun with that. You will have a long glorious career as an educator who gets to define what is obvious to your students. You can block them from participating in your classes anytime they ask you to explain the "obvious". You created a model of my mind, but I'm telling you that your model is wrong. You insist that you know my mind better than I do. That's just great. Have fun with that. If you are proposing this as the basis for moving Wikiversity into the future, I will oppose you in that effort. Wikiversity is supposed to be a place where we talk out disputes. Online communication can be tricky. If someone requests clarification, then we provide that clarification, we don't say, "if you don't know what I mean, then there is nothing I can do for you". That game of saying "if you don't know what I mean, then there is nothing I can do for you" is a way of gaming the system and a way of escaping from the responsibility we all share to communicate effectively. Why do you want to play that game with me? Since you are the busy 'crat do you have a magic "get out of obligations free card" that says you do not have to explain what you think is obvious? If that is your position, then you are only demonstrating that you are unworthy to play a leadership role in Wikiversity. Yes, I could have made a guess about what you think is "obvious", but rather than make that guess I asked you to tell me what you think is obvious. That request is a simple and normal part of human communication. Rather than engage in that kind of simple and direct communication you entered into an elaborate game pretending that you know my mind better than I do. For you, it is "obvious" that you are correct about the state of my mind and that I am deceptively hiding my true state of mind by asking you to provide a simple list. To me it is obvious that you are wrong. I really want that list and I will will respond in detail to the items that you put into that list. As it is, we have a standoff, one that has lasted several weeks. Why not do a simple experiment? Provide the list I requested. I will then respond to the items on your list and we can have an adult discussion. --JWSchmidt 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

John, how is that an appropriate response to what I've said before, and particularly just now? I gave you examples, I pointed you to discussions - yet you say I'm playing games with you? I've already given you material for discussion - it's not a "charge" - please let's discuss. Cormaggio ^talk 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"how is that an appropriate response to what I've said before" <-- You asked me to discuss something that is obvious to you, I've told you that I do not know what is obvious to you and I asked you to make a list that shows me what you are calling "obvious". I have promised to respond to that list. This is human communications 101. You say something I do not understand. I request clarification of what you mean. In normal human communication you would then clarify for me what you mean. Rather than do that, you continue to insist that I know what you are calling "obvious" and so you refuse to tell me what you think is obvious. Now are you trying to define my simple request for clarification as being inappropriate? Your reply to my request for clarification was "You ask me to provide a list of examples of where you've caused offence, which I would view as more appropriate for the 'Learning from conflict and incivility' project than your talk page.". I do not agree. If you think my editing "caused offence" then provide a link to my offensive edit on my talk page and let me discuss the edit. If you want to make a list of my edits on another page, that is fine, just bring that list to my attention and I will respond to it. I find it strange that I was in the process of responding to this list and then you decided to block me from editing that page and prevent me from further responding to the false and twisted charges you made against me. "please let's discuss" <-- You say that as if I have refused to discuss something. I've consistently asking people to discuss things with me. I've been told that I am a troll and so McCormick will not talk to me, SBJ has refused to discuss things with me, SBJ has made the absurd suggestion that rather than come to me to discuss things, people go to him. "please let's discuss" <-- You claim that I know what you want to discuss so you do not need to tell me what you want to discuss. You've said that there are other pages that are more suited for you to say what you want me to discuss. Fine, remove the bad block that you helped to impose on me and let me get back to editing and discussing. I'm still going to continue to ask people to clarify for me what they want to discuss. I cannot read minds, I do not know magically know what you and others want me to discuss. If I ask for clarification, it is an honest request for information. Please assume good faith. --JWSchmidt 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"you turned it with these two edits into a personal - and quite ad hominem - "learning project" on 'deletionism'." <-- I don't understand what you mean here by "ad hominem". In the edits you cited, I described the early history of editing for the "Albanian sea port history" page. The goal of the learning resource I started to create was clearly stated: "This learning project allows Wikiversity participants to compare and contrast the historical attacks on Durrës with the attacks on learning resources by Wikiversity deletionists." Are you objecting to my use of the term "deletionists"? Would you prefer that I use the term "deletionism" as a less "personal" term? My understanding of the term "ad hominem" suggests that you are implying that my learning resource was a way of "attacking my opponent personally". That was not the stated objective of the learning resource. The stated objective was to compare attacks on an ancient center of civilization to the deletion of pages at Wikiversity. "you possibly don't always think of the consequences of your actions on others" <-- I've spent years thinking about and exploring the consequences of challenging the actions of deletionists at wiki websites. In this case, the expected consequence of the learning resource I started to make was that Wikiversity deletionists would see how easy it is to take a page with "no content at all" and expand it into a useful learning resource. This is how wikis function and grow. Someone starts a page, in good faith, and then other people expand the page. The whole process is derailed when deletionists step in and destroy the good faith contributions of other wiki editors. I am aware that many people are not happy when they are called deletionists. Are you suggesting that since some people are made unhappy when the term "deletionist" is used, that should stop me from using the terms "deletionists" and "deletionism"? If so, then let's start the list of banned words at Wikiversity. Deletionism is a widely-used term to describe well-known wiki phenomena towards one end of the delete-include spectrum. I do not understand why we can't have learning resources that explore deletionism. I've been told that some people object to where I have placed learning resources about deletionism. I've had some constructive discussions with Jade Knight about this and I agreed to change my choice of location for such possible learning resources in the future. Jade Knight also objected to my use of analogies as a way of exploring deletionism. I told him that I will take his objection about using analogies into account in the future when I make learning resources. I still believe that using analogies is a valid educational method, but I have agreed to try to be more sensitive in the future. In my view, if I include an analogy in a learning resource and someone objects to that analogy, then they should come to me and explain their objection. "having fun being silly" <-- it is "silly" to try to literally compare military attacks on a city with deleting a Wikiversity page, but I made use of this analogy in an effort make people think about the very real consequences of deleting the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors. I had been trying other methods for two two years, and the deletionists were happy to just continue their habit of calling the contributions of other Wikiversity participants "garbage" that needs to be deleted. When people do not listen to reason and do not follow proposed Wikiversity policy then I feel I have the right to make some "over-the-top" learning resources that are designed to make people think about what they are doing. In my view, that is a valid educational approach. "take criticisms on board" <-- I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. When Jade Knight made comments such as, "Should every single empty page targeted for deletion become the battleground of the inclusionists and deletionists", I participated at the talk page and made a good faith effort to address his stated concerns. In my view, Jade Knight was making claims that could easily be shown to be false claims. Are you suggesting that it was my duty to "take on board" and accept those demonstrably false claims? "recognise that Jade Knight was clearly hurt" <-- In my experience as a wiki editor, only a few wiki editors are proud to be called deletionists...they even self-categorize themselves as deletionists at Wikipedia. I saw that Jade Knight did not like his attempt to delete "Albanian sea port history" being characterized as an example of deletionism. When I began to realize how unhappy he was, I stopped developing the learning resource I had set out to make. It is unfair to claim that I was not sensitive to his valid complaints. It is true that I failed to understand the depth of his unhappiness until we had our user talk page discussion. This is exactly why I invite people to come to my talk page and discuss matters when they are not happy with my editing. When editors who are not happy with my editing, rather than come and talk to me, instead go off and complain to someone else about my editing then the whole system breaks down. It is particularly bad when people like you sign their names to false charges that are made by other editors against me and then invent new false charges in an attempt to justify blocking me from editing Wikiversity. I can't imagine why you refuse to retract the false charges you have made against me. --JWSchmidt 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, you and I have very different ideas about what valid complaints are. I consider all of my complaints valid, and I have a hunch that many other individuals consider the complaints of mine which you consider invalid as valid. We could always take a poll. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, you and I have previously discussed some of your complaints. For example, you complained that "JWSchmidt is circumventing the deletion discussion page by turning every page which the community thinks might be worthy of deletion into a 1-sided argument about deletionism". Do you still consider that to be a valid complaint? --JWSchmidt 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing was hyperbolic, but the underlying complaint is still valid, IMO. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"do you think this was an appropriate response" <-- I think this describes what I had previously seen on several other wikis and it also provided an accurate prediction of how I was later blocked from editing at Wikiversity. I'm interested to hear why you think that my accurate description of how things are often done at wikis is not appropriate content for Wikiversity. "Do you think that there are people who want to actively "suppress" good faith contributions to Wikiversity? If so, can you show me examples of this?" <-- The best example is McCormack's effort to delete the student union, remove the main link to the student union and turn the student union into a redirect. I've discussed McCormack's behavior in detail on multiple pages, some of which I think you have read. There are other examples that have arisen at the page for discussing proposed page deletions. Many inappropriate page deletions are done speedily in violation of Wikiversity deletion policy. --JWSchmidt 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

People should be more careful about speedy deletions, yes. But I don't feel McCormack was trying to "actively suppress good faith contributions to Wikiversity"; you seem to see his edits as a great conspiracy against Wikiversity, but please assume good faith. It's not that a discussion of activities done on wikis is not "appropriate content for Wikiversity". It's that such a disucssion, particularly one as acerbic as the tone of your edit there, is not appropriate pasted directly on a template. Can you not see the difference? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Can you not see the difference?" <-- I can see the difference very well. I put instructions for using the template on the template where the people who misuse the template will be sure to see the instructions. Do you think it makes sense to put those instructions on another page where they can be ignored, thus allowing people to continue to misuse the template? "the tone of your edit there" <-- what tone should be used when addressing people who use the template in violation of Wikiversity policy? --JWSchmidt 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"I urge to stop calling 'false charges', and instead looking to understand why people are saying these things to/about you - whether or not you believe you were justified, or that the 'charges' are unjustified". <-- Thanks for your advice. I find your advice to be absurd. You have made false charges against me and used those false charges to try to justify blocking me from editing and removing my custodianship. Since we are sharing advice, here is my advice to you. Retract the false charges you have made against me. Remove the bad block you helped impose on me. "instead looking to understand why people are saying these things" <-- I was engaged in that process when you decided I should be blocked from editing. Unblock me and let me get back to participating at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok John - before I respond to this, I have to take my turn to ask for clarification. Is everything I have said here a "false charge"? Is there anything that you agree with, or are sympathetic to, or could take on board? Cormaggio ^talk 09:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is everything I have said here a 'false charge'?" <-- I never said that and I cannot imagine why you feel the need to ask such a question. I've asked you to retract the false charge that my Wikiversity participation has involved bringing my enemies at Wikipedia and the foundation to ridicule. I've asked you to retract the false charge that I did something wrong by asking Moulton to help improve the Wikiversity policy on research. You used that false charge to try to justify blocking me from editing Wikiversity. Before you agreed that I should be blocked from editing, I was working through the charges that you made against me. So far, I have looked at eight of those charges and everyone of them is full of twisted charges that are sickening to read. The author of those charges has, in every case, created a distorted narrative. I was in the process of responding to those distortions when you decided that I need to be blocked from editing. I do not understand why you would put your name on false and twisted charges against me, block me from editing rather than let me defend myself against your false and twisted charges and try to pretend that those false charges can justify blocking me from editing. I've called upon you to retract the false charges you have made against me. I've called on you to remove the bad block that you helped to impose on me. If you will do that, then I can continue the process of defending myself against the twisted charges made against me. I will also be able to continue the process that I was engaged in: the process of discussing any concerns about my editing that other Wikiversity editors might have. --JWSchmidt 15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I asked the question because I wanted a broader sense of what you perceive as "false", in addition to the examples you had raised previously. It strikes me that what you see as "false" is still a realistic presentation of what happened as seen by other people who were involved. You say that statements you've read are "twisted" and "false", but I wonder what you would think if you tried to see statements as versions of events according to other people, and to try to understand why people feel the way they do? This is why I asked if there was anything in what's been said about you that you agree or could sympathise with, or could take on board - and I think it would help greatly if you could read all the cases and discussions with this thought in mind. As for the examples you've highlighted, they're made more complex as a result of the nature of Moulton's activity, and the fact that much of this has taken place on IRC. From my perspective, I wouldn't say you have "enemies" (as Moulton has) - I would say there are people and practices within Wikimedia that you have a disregard for. And I would say that asking Moulton to collaborate on beta was not going to be as benign as you have claimed it would be - though I would stress that this is only one part of the story. I'm sorry that you are sickened by the narrative in the review, and there are things in there that I would happily tone down or remove. But, even though you have your point of view, I would like you to move beyond labels of "false charges" - I don't think it's fair on other people's perspectives on the matter, not least the fact that many people see it differently to you. (Sorry for taking so long in responding, by the way.) Cormaggio ^talk 15:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberation. When we can see the world in more than one way.
Duckrabbit

"I wonder what you would think if you tried to see statements as versions of events according to other people, and to try to understand why people feel the way they do" <-- Do you seriously imagine that I do not try to see things from multiple points of view? Why do you think I put the duckrabbit on my user talk page? I assume you have read the talk page discussion I had with Jade Knight and I assume that you realize that after I edited pages such as "Albanian sea port history" and the student union I let other people remove what I had added to those pages. The Wikiversity participants who have edited those pages reached consensus about what to include on those pages. I've agreed not to include learning resources about page deletion on pages like those. "I would say there are people and practices within Wikimedia that you have a disregard for" <-- I've spent years dealing with vandals and others who "have a disregard for" the missions of the wikis that I have worked hard to help build. "going to be as benign as you have claimed it would be" <-- I do not recall making any such claims. Development of research policy for Wikiversity is a long-term interest of mine and I have worked with everyone who has shown an interest in developing research at Wikiversity. I understand that you do not know Moulton and you do not assume good faith with respect to his activities. I do know Moulton and I know that he is a useful collaborator for many topics that are of interest to me. I take my collaborators as I find them and I do not participate in witch hunts no matter how popular they are at a particular moment in time. "I would like you to move beyond labels of 'false charges' - I don't think it's fair on other people's perspectives on the matter" <-- Well, I guess this is a fundamental difference between you and I. When someone makes false charges against me I expect them to retract those false charges. If the false charges are not retracted, I do not just move past the false charges as if they do not exist. "I don't think it's fair" <-- I don't think it's fair to make false charges against someone and try to use those false charges to "justify" blocking them and removing their custodianship. I don't think it's fair to make false and twisted charges against someone and then block that person and prevent that person from responding to the false and twisted charges. That's just the way I am. If you expect me to be different, you are going to have to live with having your expectations not be met. "many people see it differently to you" <-- is this claim supposed to make me feel happy to have false charges made against me? "many people see it differently to you" <-- is this claim supposed to make me feel happy about being banned from #wikiversity-en without any reason being given for the ban? "many people see it differently to you" <-- is this claim supposed to make me feel happy about false charges being used to "justify" blocking me from editing and removing my custodianship? --JWSchmidt 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion quite difficult and frustrating, John, since you seem to be treating it as a "standoff". So, I'll repeat (again) my central question: Is there anything in mine or others' criticisms of your recent editing that you agree with, or are sympathetic to, or could take on board? Cormaggio ^talk 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"criticisms of your recent editing" <-- you have restricted all of my recent editing to this one page. You chief complaint about my recent editing seems to be that I am "difficult and frustrating". Your main complaint seems to be that I do not listen to other Wikiversity editors and "take on board" their complaints about my editing. I guess I can see how it must be frustrating for you to keep repeating such an obviously false complaint about me. Anyone who looks at my editing history can see that I do listen to other Wikiversity editors and "take on board" their complaints about my editing. I have repeatedly and explicitly given examples of this to you and others on this talk page (for example, see this and this). Why you continue to ignore the explicit examples that I have provided on this page is very mysterious, even more mysterious than why you could not just read my edit history and see that I do listen to other Wikiversity editors and "take on board" their complaints about my editing. I am left thinking that there is some magic word that you expect me to utter before you will unblock me, but you refuse to tell me what the magic word is. I can see how it might be frustrating for you to wait for me to read your mind or guess the magic word, but that is a frustration of your own creation. Frankly, I do not understand what you hope to gain by playing this game, a game in which you keep asking a question that I have already repeatedly answered right here on this page. If you feel that my past efforts to listen to other editors and "take on board" their complaints about my editing are not adequate, then you need to say that and explain what is still bothering you. Maybe what is still bothering you about my editing is in the charges you have made against me that you are preventing me from responding to. In any case, you should remove the bad block that you helped imposed on me and let me finish responding to the charges you have made against me. --JWSchmidt 18:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

My unblock request.

Note:
The original content of this page section was an unblock request.

The blocking custodian then destroyed my original unblock request and added an unblock denial template.

Later the denial statement was removed.

Well I'd hope JW can be unblocked too :-) Privatemusings 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now more than a month after an indefinite duration block was imposed on me by User:SB Johnny without warning, discussion or a valid reason provided. Of course, his bad block was over-turned by the community. For some reason, User:SB Johnny first destroyed my unblock request and now he also removed his denial of my unblock request. In between destroying my unblock request and removing his denial of my unblock request from this page, User:SB Johnny added this to the page: "just go fuck yourself and go away". In my many years as a wiki editor, I have never previously seen such a level of disruptive editing by a non-vandal on another person's user talk page. --JWSchmidt 14:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Writ of Habeas Avatarus

I hereby submit a Writ of Habeas Avatarus calling upon the Custodians of Wikiversity to produce the avatars currently locked up in the hall closet. It is unseemly, unscholarly, ungentlemanly, undignified, and unbecoming for the Custodians of this distinguished venue of higher learning to be locking up avatars in the hall closet. (It's probably uncivil, too, but the definition of 'uncivil' here appears to vary from that used elsewhere in Earthling academic communities.) —Barsoom Tork 14:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been two days since Barsoom Tork filed his Writ of Habeas Avatarus and there has been no response from the Custodians. Could I have a statement from the Custodians for an upcoming story? —Montana Mouse 12:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's awfully quiet in here. Are people still thinking? —Moulton 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

JWSchmidt, please explain your role in bringing about the tensions that have been disrupting the project, and how you will do things differently in the future. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what User:SB_Johnny means by "the tensions that have been disrupting the project". User:SB_Johnny, please explain. Make a list of these "tensions" and I will address each one. Speaking for myself, the main "tension" at this time seems to be that User:SB_Johnny has blocked me without providing a valid reason. Further, he has banned me from #Wikiversity-en without providing any reason. I suggest that the best thing for Wikiversity is for User:SB_Johnny to unblock me here and let me participate in #Wikiversity-en. If User:SB_Johnny will talk to me about the aspects of my behavior that he does not like, then I will be able discuss possible changes for the future. So far, User:SB_Johnny has had very little discussion with me, so I still do not know what he expects me to do. I know that he is unhappy with some of the learning exercises I have made at Wikiversity, but we have not had a chance to fully discuss the matter. In particular, I asked him what alternatives existed to my learning exercises and I feel that I did not get any meaningful reply. Apparently, the approach that is to be taken is that some types of learning projects will be black-listed at Wikiversity. I would like to participate in any discussions related to such black-listing. The only person who has had a discussion with me is User:Jade Knight. I feel that dialog increased our mutual understanding and I suggested the idea is that we could have a "Training:" namespace where I could collect and curate "mess and garbage" pages created by new users. Rather than delete a stub page, we would move it to the "Training:" namespace. If the page gets developed, then we could move it back to the main namespace, see: 1, 2, 3, 4. As always, I stand ready to collaborate and improve Wikiversity. The first step is that people have to talk to me. Another source of tension has been discussion of Topic:Wikipedia studies in #Wikiversity-en. I have repeatedly proposed many solutions to this source of tension. Today, I thought everyone agreed that chat about Topic:Wikipedia studies could take place in a subchannel, #wikiversity-en-projects. I went off and participated at #wikiversity-en-projects. Then, without discussion or reason User:SB_Johnny banned me from #wikiversity-en. I work to change and improve things and User:SB_Johnny punishes me. If anyone can explain this behavior, I'd like to hear the explanation. Another source of tension is Moulton's interest in the real world identities of wiki editors. I have spent weeks asking Moulton to abandon that interest. I have participated in many constructive Wikiversity editing projects with Moulton in an effort to move him away from his interest in the real world identities of wiki editors. I made changes to Wikiversity:Privacy policy and suggested that we make that an official policy. I suggested that we then say in the topic of #wikiversity-en that the Privacy Policy also applies to the chat chat channel. I feel that my actions have been positive and constructive. It is truly hard for me to see what more I can do in the future. If anyone has any suggestions, please talk to me, I am truly interested in hearing your ideas. I perceive many tensions at Wikiversity, but I think it would be most efficient if User:SB_Johnny would tell me which ones he is concerned about so I can discuss those, specifically. --JWSchmidt 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I just want to know if you understand what's going on. You really have made a major contribution to things going wrong, and I'm honestly wondering if you understand that. Can you give me a simple yes or no to start? --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Can you give me a simple yes or no to start?" <-- I could if you asked a simple yes or no question...."things going wrong" is so vague that I wonder if even you know what you mean by it. Blocking people without giving a valid reason is "going wrong", but I have not done that. You really need to specify what you mean by "things going wrong". As mentioned above, I Know you are not happy with some of the learning exercises I made. Obviously I know that I made those learning exercises. I've had a constructive dialog with Jade Knight and we started exploring ways to deal with page deletion...ways that do not involve me making learning exercises about page deletion. I've endlessly said that I stand ready to make other changes in my editing....all it takes is for people to tell me what problems they have with my past editing followed by a coherent discussion of alternatives for the future. Jade Knight is the only person who has engaged with me in that kind of constructive process. Some people complained about discussions of "Wikipedia Studies" in #wikiversity-en. I've worked hard to develop a plan for moving such discussions to a subchannel. After all that hard work seemed to finally be successful, you banned me from #wikiversity-en, without warning and without giving a reason. "I just want to know if you understand what's going on." <-- I think I have a good understanding of what is going on in public. Of course, I am not privy to the secret off-wiki planning sessions that some people get to participate in. How am I supposed to know what is going on in #wikiversity-en when you ban me, without giving a reason, from that channel? I f you have so little time for Wikiversity that you now demand monosyllable responses, I suggest that you go on wiki break and let the rest of us get back to discussing and editing. --JWSchmidt 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

John, the atmosphere on Wikiversity is very tense, but getting better. I'm convinced that you had something to do with creating this tense atmosphere. So please work with me here: there must be at least one thing you've said or done over the past month that you've realized since then was a mistake.

Please identify and describe one of those mistakes, and how you would have done differently with the benefit of hindsight. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I make errors every day. When I recognize those errors, I try to correct them. Recently in #wikiversity-en, darkcode (User:Darklama) was doing his usual good work to clean up problems at Wikiversity and I made a stupid and hurtful comment. I immediately realized that my comment was not helpful so I said it was inexcusable and tried to explain what I really wanted to say. I wish that on that day I had just gone and taken a nap rather than keep pushing myself to participate at Wikiversity. I like to think that had I taken a nap, I might have avoided making my mean-spirited comment. I also recently told Jade Knight that when we were editing a page together, I was having fun and I did not realize that my fun was not appreciated...in fact, I did not realize that my fun was just an intense source of irritation for others. I'm always trying new things, and usually I try new things and then let them drop and move on to other things. My initial expectation had been that I would just make a small learning project (a rather silly one!) and then move on. When Jade Knight joined in the editing of the page, I should have just stopped rather rather than keep trying to edit. --JWSchmidt 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw both of those, and that's definitely more like the JWS I've come to know. In hindsight, is there anything you could have done differently with McCormack or "Salmon"? I get the impression they're not your favorite people, but they each had their own things to add. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"In hindsight, is there anything you could have done differently with McCormack or "Salmon"?" <-- Yes. --JWSchmidt 10:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset tabs) Excellent! Could you provide some examples? For example: when user A did X, and you did Y, what would the preferable Z be in hindsight? --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When McCormack called me troll in #wikiversity-en I could have used an "SBJ method" and banned him from participating in the channel. When "Salmon" used an unauthorized bot at Wikiversity I could have used an "SBJ method" and given him an indef block. --JWSchmidt 13:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

JWS, I feel that it is a tad unfair. The timing and the recent events make your situation different. Please don't waste this time attacking others. Please? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"attacking others" <-- Is that directed at me? If so, who did I attack? "The timing and the recent events make your situation different." <-- I have no idea what that means. Ottava, can you explain what you are trying to say? --JWSchmidt 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There are subtle jabs behind your use of the phrase "SBJ method" and your applying said method to two others. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava, but we can deal with subtle jabs later. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(Back to topic) JWS, are you saying that channel banning and blocking would have been a better response? --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"channel banning and blocking would have been a better response?" <-- no, I'm not saying that, I was just guessing that was what you wanted to hear. "what would the preferable Z be in hindsight?" <-- I could have quit making my learning exercise (at the "Student Union" page) before I completed it. In the case of Salmon, when he archived the ethics project talk page, I suspected that there was something on the page that Salmon found objectionable. I tried to get Salmon to tell me what the problems was, but he refused to tell me. Later, when he said he intended to use an unauthorized bot to remove links to external sites, I asked him to explain what sites he was concerned about. He said something like "that's none of your business". If you have an idea for what I could have done differently, I'm willing to listen. --JWSchmidt 21:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Salmon thing" is a bit complicated, so I'll ask about the Student Union issue. What were you trying to teach, and/or learn? --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Many people who come to Wikiversity self-identify as students. Wikiversity needs to make visitors who self-identify as students feel welcome to edit here. An effort had been made to remove the welcome mat for visitors who self-identify as students. --JWSchmidt 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently? --SB_Johnny ^talk 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect the opinion of others who say that "major pages" like the student union page are not the place for learning exercises. I still believe that the learning exercise I created for that page was appropriate. I have a significant amount of real world experience dealing with attempts by administrators to secretly deprive students of useful learning resources and learning opportunities. In my experience, it is always useful to inform the students about such attempts. After I constructed my learning exercise at the student union page, I let other editors make the decision about keeping the exercise or removing it from that page. Since I now know that some people do not agree with my view with respect to putting learning exercises at the main student portal page, I will take that into consideration in the future. In wikis, new decisions are always being made about what content should be on which page. I'm willing to be guided by consensus on content decisions. The argument I have heard is that the learning exercise I made for the student union might be "disorienting" for new visitors to Wikiversity. My view is that the exercise was explicitly "orienting" in that it informed new Wikiversity participants that an effort has been made to stop providing self-identified students with a prominent link from the main page to a portal page designed to fit their needs. I still view this as an important lesson to be conveyed to Wikiversity participants. It is certainly possible to put learning exercises on other pages and just link to them from the main student portal page. I still think it would be constructive to put at least one learning exercise on the main portal page for students, just as a way of encouraging new visitors to click "edit" and participate. --JWSchmidt 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that your actions in that case were perfectly appropriate? Would you do it all over again? --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Given what I know now, I'd be willing to go with Jade Knight's suggestion and make a page specifically for learning about page deletion and provide a link from the student union page to that other page. --JWSchmidt 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset tabs) That does sound like a better option. The thing I'm really wondering about though is whether you knew at the time that your comments, actions, accusations, and "analogies" (like the "tearing up a kid's drawing" thing) were genuinely hurtful both to McCormack and to Jade Knight, as well as hurtful in an empathetic way to onlookers? --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not know that anyone felt hurt. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may have been the only one... did you read this (bottom sections)? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When I read, "which is probably intended to be offensive and provocative," I was puzzled. The learning exercise I created for the student union page was intended to allow Wikiversity participants to become aware of attempts that had been made to remove links to the Wikiversity Student union, delete the Wikiversity Student union and turn the Wikiversity Student union into a redirect page. I did intend the learning exercise to be provocative in the sense that I thought it might stimulate student discussion on the student union page. I could not think of a reason why anyone would think that I intended the learning exercise to be offensive. "personalised the issue, devalued the page with his edits and then linked the page directly from the main page (while still tagged for deletion) just to highlight his personal attacks" <-- I described what had been happening to the student union page. If anyone felt I had personalized the issue, it is probably because they had personally played a major role in trying to remove links to the Wikiversity Student union and delete the Wikiversity Student union. In other words, they had personalized the issue while I just described their editing. "devalued the page" <-- I agree that the page had been devalued by attempts to remove links to the Wikiversity Student union, delete the Wikiversity Student union and turn the Wikiversity Student union into a redirect page. My creation of a learning exercise on the student union page was an attempt to develop the page and make it more useful to students. "highlight his personal attacks" <-- There were no "personal attacks". A traditional way to game the system is to falsely label the the words of others as "personal attacks". In my experience, it is fairly common to see false claims of "personal attacks" from editors who have themselves engaged in behaviors such as calling another editor a "troll". As it says at Wikipedia, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks". --JWSchmidt 14:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for me "being mindful of how your actions affect others" would be a core part of civility (perhaps not part of the definition, but a good tenet to follow in any case). When you had 3 different people reverting you because they found the content objectionable, it would have made sense to pause for a bit, explain your intention (and especially that you did not intend harm), and try to discuss it in a quiet corner somewhere (email or a talk page). I know you tried to talk to McCormack on irc, but by that time you had already done a good bit of damage and trying to force a conversation with someone who's intensely pissed off and bitter will only exascerbate the problem (and besides, a conversation on an open irc channel isn't private, and it's pretty clear that he felt you were intent on humiliating him in public, and given that he felt that way, it's understandable why he would describe it as a personal attack). It would have gone a lot better if you had just laid off it for a while.

You don't have to agree with people's reaons for being pissed off to acknowledge that they're pissed off. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

“ being mindful of how your actions affect others ”

The person so affected has an obligation to forthrightly disclose their resultant affective emotional state. It is unreasonable to expect people to detect facial expressions, tone of voice, gross body language, and other normative nonverbal indicators of emotional arousal in a text-telegraph medium such as wiki. It perplexes me why anyone would deem it incivil to fail to solve a puzzle for which the clues are not adequately presented. —Gastrin Bombesin 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT, the only two people on all of Wikiversity that couldn't tell that McCormack was bothered and JWSchmidt's edits were upsetting him and others were you and him. Something to chew on. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"the only two people on all of Wikiversity that couldn't tell that McCormack was bothered and JWSchmidt's edits were upsetting him and others were you and him" <-- For the record, I have known that "McCormack was bothered" ever since he called me a troll and said he would no longer talk to me. That was many months ago. --JWSchmidt 15:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that McCormack communicated his affective emotional state to either JWSchmidt or to myself? Are you aware that I am bothered unpeaced by your recent acts of unceremoniously removing from discussion the carefully crafted remarks of a fellow scholar? —Moulton 05:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"pause for a bit, explain your intention" <-- As shown at Wikiversity talk:Student union/Archive/September 2008, I repeatedly paused and explained what I was doing. I participated in a lengthy discussion that eventually led to the idea that the learning exercise I had created would better be placed on another page. I do not agree with that view, but I did allow others to remove the learning exercise from the student union page. This seems like a rather routine wiki editing process by which wiki participants decide which page is the best location for particular types of content. "someone who's intensely pissed off and bitter" ... "it's pretty clear that he felt you were intent on humiliating him" <-- I felt I was engaged in the normal process of creating of a learning resource and then a fairly routing discussion about options for where to place a particular resource within the wiki. If someone is upset with me, they should come to my talk page and explain the problem. Of course, that solution is not available to someone who has publicly stated their intent not to talk to me. It seems like the central issue here is the individual who had a problem with my editing but who refuses to discuss anything with me. It is not reasonable to expect me to read that individual's thoughts and notice that they are pissed. "It would have gone a lot better if you had just laid off it for a while" <-- this reminds me of a "solution" for accidents caused by drunk driving: don't drive during the early hours (around 2-3 am) because we know there are many drunks on the road at that time. "being mindful of how your actions affect others" <-- good advice, but the drunks do not seem to take such advice to heart. --JWSchmidt 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just re-read that page, and people were making it very clear to you (repeatedly) that they felt you were being inappropriate and offensive, both in terms of what you had added to the page and what you were saying on the talk page. In hindsight, would you have taken a different approach? --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---)How is what JWS did any more inappropriate or offensive than the currently popular practice of binding, gagging, kicking, and locking up serious-minded scholars in the hall closet for a week? How do you imagine that makes someone feel? —Montana Mouse 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I call on both sides to recognise that their behavior has upset the other side. I wish both sides to acknowledge the real and troubling lack of successful communication. Please let us have less assuming bad faith and more realization that we are all flawed human beings who make honest mistakes. WAS 4.250 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The lack of successful communication (primarily the lack of communication of affective emotional states that enable dialogue partners to enter into a state of mutual empathy) is partly caused by the limitations of text-telegraphy, and partly by the reluctance to employ vocabulary terms that succinctly disclose the affective emotional states that are filtered out of text-telegraphy modes of communication. I lament and regret this unfortunate limitation in the functional affordances of the Internet. —Gastrin Bombesin 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been chatting online for over 15 years now, and I really don't find it that hard to communicate online, particularly with others who have experience communicating online and are assuming good faith. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that JWSchmidt's actions were equally inappropriate as blocking him. How does that justify him at all? If the two were equally inappropriate, were the blocks justified by being "an eye for an eye"? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why assume anything so ludicrously at odds with the ground truth? Blocking is used to prevent damage from destructive vandals, full stop. Nothing that JWSchmidt was posting could, in any way, shape or form, be characterized as even remotely destructive or vandalistic. Blocking an authentic scholar who is sincerely contributing in good faith is an outrageously inappropriate way to treat a fellow scholar in an academic culture. Would the faculty in a respectable institution of higher learning bind and gag another scholar and lock him up in the janitorial hall closet for a week? How did such an idiotic and sophomoric practice ever find its way into the culture of Wikiversity? —Moulton 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Moulton, blocking is used for a variety of things, one of the most important of which is preventing damage from destructive vandals. But that is not the only thing; consensus is important, and those who fight against consensus often do much more damage to a wiki than they aid it. Moulton, the faculties of respectable institutions of higher learning revoke employment (ie, the right to teach students at the university) from non-tenured scholars all the time when they feel those professors are hindering the purpose of the university. They never gag them and lock them up, but JWSchmidt is not gagged or locked up. If his block were to become indefinite, he would be free to approach other respectable institutions of higher learning and try to become a professor there. He's also free to learn. So, in your words, such "an idiotic and sophomoric practice" is common in the culture of universities such as Leeds, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, U of Toronto, Stanford, etc. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a tad arrogant to summarily dismiss those who argue against consensus? Every innovation in the history of civilization has to overthrow the status quo. Among the more famous examples are some we have recently remarked upon — Socrates, Jesus, Beckett, Leonardo, Copernicus, Galileo, Lavoisier, Thoreau, Darwin, Einstein, Gandi, Feynman, King (just to name a few). Where is John's voice in this discussion? Why is he not here, presenting his views? I, for one, am eager to hear what he has to say. On whose authority is his voice silenced in these halls of higher learning and scholarly discourse? —Moulton 05:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"those who fight against consensus often do much more damage to a wiki than they aid it" <-- is this the charge that is being leveled against me? If so, then please explain what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that I have in some way rejected the role of consensus in wiki communities? Are you trying to say that I have objected to attempts by others to falsely claim that consensus has been established? What does "fight against consensus" mean? --JWSchmidt 15:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Straight talk

"In hindsight, would you have taken a different approach?" <-- is this question intended to be any different from this question to which I already replied? "people were making it very clear to you (repeatedly) that they felt you were being inappropriate and offensive" <-- Other editors were making false claims about my intentions and my actions. It was suggested that I was trying to be offensive, which was not true. It was claimed that I "devalued the page", but I responded to that charge by saying that the learning exercise I was developing was my attempt to improve the page. A false claim was made that I made "personal attacks". Making false claims about personal attacks is a common way to game the system, so common that I often just ignore such false claims as background noise. The claim was made that I "personalised the issue", but all I did was describe the actions of others who had tried to remove useful links to the Wikiversity Student union, delete the Wikiversity Student union and turn the Wikiversity Student union into a redirect page. A claim was made that I was "busy driving current participants away from Wikiversity" but I did not take that claim seriously because the person making the claim qualified it as "intended to be rhetorically effective". The claim was made, "You're being really hostile here," which was a false claim either about my state of mind or my intentions. It was suggested that I had taken "ownership" of the student union page, but all I was doing was developing the page. It was claimed that, "You are creating an environment of shame here," but all I did was describe the editing of others, editing that they defended. How can a discussion of editing that the editors are proud of cause shame? It was claimed that the learning exercise I made was "just rude", but when I asked how it was rude, I got no answer. It was claimed that I was "acting uncivily", but no evidence to support that claim was provided. It was claimed that I was "opposed to having students participate", but when I asked for evidence to support that claim, there was none provided. There was an additional list of six charges made against me which I had already addressed at the Colloquium. There were false claims made about consensus, another common way to game the system, which I usually just ignore. The comment was made, "don't mess with JWSchmidt while he god-modes with Wikiversity," but when I asked for an explanation of what that meant, there was no reply. I listened to the complaints and discussed them. Eventually it was suggested that the learning exercise I made could just be moved to another page and I let others remove the learning exercise from the student union page. Given the fact that I was dealing with demonstrably false and undefended claims, I felt no compulsion to "back off" in the face of those claims. When a compromise proposal was finally made, I accepted the compromise and moved on. As I already said on this page, given what I know now I'd be willing to just make a link from the student union to the learning exercise I created. I don't think that is the best approach, but there seems to be consensus for that compromise approach. --JWSchmidt 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your behavior on the discussion page. Rather than taking the tone you did, could you have taken a different approach? --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All roads lead to Rome. —Moulton 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rather than taking the tone you did, could you have taken a different approach?" <-- I don't know what you mean by "tone". Please tell me how you characterize my "tone". "could you have taken a different approach?" <-- How does this question differ from this question which I already replied to? --JWSchmidt 05:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

JWS, we can continue our discussion later, when Moulton cuts it out. Please do keep in mind (both of you) that there will be no unblock without some agreement to do your part(s) to create and maintain a civil and collegial environment. If you consider your behavior perfectly acceptable and don't see it as a problem, we can't really expect you not to repeat it. If we can't rely on you not to repeat it, the only reasonable assumption is that unblocking would inevitably lead to further problems. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider blocking to be an incivil and uncollegial practice, unworthy of an authentic academic culture. For the life of me, Johnny, I cannot fathom why the custodians here bought into the adolescent Bomis Boyz™ B&D Culture. But if it pleases you to tie me up, gag me, kick me on IRC, and lock me in the janitor's hall closets — if that is to be your adoptive cultural model — then whom am I to deny you and the remaining custodians the ecstasy of your fervently held religious convictions, sophomoric as they may be? If that is your preference — to embrace and adopt a ridiculously adolescent and unscholarly practice per Jimbo's initial demonstration of the Bomis Boyz™ method of dealing with authentic scholars — then I'll simply document that curious practice as your own freely adopted choice as well. In any event, I'll continue to document the ethnology of Wikimedia-sponsored projects whatever they evolve to become. My skills at Houdini-like escape from the straight-jackets won't be very entertaining. I'll just continue to talk straight to whoever cares to engage in Bohmian dialogue. —Moulton 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe Wikipedia would have gotten off the ground if expressly forbade blocking. Realize, Moulton, that no one at Wikiversity has tenure, and if a non-tenured professor started acting in ways a university considered disruptive or unhelpful, there would be no "block"; the professor would simply be stripped of his right to contribute in the same way as other professors. But I guess that is blocking. So, it seems that blocking is a collegial practice, and is considered worthy of authentic academic culture at every major university. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"blocking is a collegial practice, and is considered worthy of authentic academic culture" <-- Since this is my user talk page I'm going to assume that this comment is in some way related to the act of blocking me from editing at Wikiversity. Jade Knight, are you claiming that in an "authentic academic culture" it is common practice to make false and twisted charges against a member of the community and then block that member from responding to those false and twisted charges? "considered disruptive or unhelpful" <-- If someone is removed from an authentic academic community, is it not required that a reason be given for that removal and the accused be given a chance to respond? SB_Johnny blocked me from editing without providing a valid reason for the block. SB_Johnny has refused to discuss his bad black other than to vaguely suggest that someday there might be new "guidelines" created for Wikiversity and if that happens than he might unblock me. His adoption of that position is clearly an abuse of his custodial powers. Yes, this kind of thing does happen in the real world and administrators of academic institutions who try these kinds of tricks are routinely prosecuted for their illegal employment practices. --JWSchmidt 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was simply addressing Moulton's comments. It was not intended to be indirectly applicable to your case, though it may possibly be indirectly applicable; I have not weighed that particular application against these comments. Oh, and BTW, in an authentic academic community, reason is only required if the one being removed has tenure (by far the minority of cases). However, reason is often given. Not that it's entirely relevant. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people without tenure have a contract that protects them from being terminated without cause and without a chance to defend themselves against false charges. A wiki community is based an rules and consensus, not the whims of sysops. It is the obligation of every sysop to provide a valid reason for a block when they impose a block. SB_Johnny did not provide a valid reason when he blocked me. He has tried to "justify" blocking me by making false and twisted charges against me. He blocked me and prevented me from responding to all his false and twisted charges. Are you comfortable with such abuse of sysop powers? You think this is the way a wiki should be run? --JWSchmidt 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"when Moulton cuts it out" <-- SB_Johnny, you blocked me without providing a valid reason. Are you now saying that my unblock is contingent on the behavior of another editor? Just do the honorable thing and unblock me now if you want to create and maintain a civil and collegial environment. Your comment above seems to imply that you think I do not agree to help create and maintain a civil and collegial environment. I challenge that insinuation. I have worked hard for years to make Wikiversity a civil and collegial environment. If you think I have done something to disrupt that environment then tell me what is bothering you and let's discuss it. You have published false charges about me such as the idea that my Wikiversity participation has been motivated by an attempt to ridicule my "enemies at Wikipedia and the foundation". Do the honorable thing and retract your false charges. Before you blocked me from editing I was responding to your false and twisted charges. Unblock me so I can complete that process. "we can't really expect you not to repeat it" <-- I've repeatedly told you how I would do things differently now that there seems to be consensus for doing things in different ways. --JWSchmidt 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just hard to follow the discussion when he's doing that, and I'm sure he'd cut it out if you asked him to. I don't think I accused you of ridiculing "enemies at Wikipedia" (I didn't think you had any to speak of, but rather that you are quite concerned that certain bits of the wikipedian culture will in a sense "contaminate" Wikiversity). You did ridicule McCormack, Salmon of Doubt, Jade Knight, and Centaur of Attention (the latter did a good job of making himself a target, of course). The issue isn't where things ended up, but how it started.

Keep in mind that the SU thing started when McCormack simply listed it on the RfD page. Before that, the only substantial edits had been by you, and since students weren't editing it, there was a (fairly weak) case that it could have been creating a "ghost town effect". You responded by adding content to the page insinuating that McCormack didn't want students to be welcome at Wikiversity (in fact you said as much when linking to it.

All that really needed to be done was to simply oppose the deletion here. It wasn't in any danger of being deleted (no consensus). You could have also moved to close the deletion discussion. There was no need to insinuate in multiple fora that the act of considering the deletion or reditect of a page amounted to abusing Somali (or Latino, or South African, or any) students.

If you felt you were being unfairly accused of something, you could have just requested a neutral party to come take a look (rather than responding in kind with even more hyperbolic accusations). There were at least 3 people around that would have been happy to help (Erkan, Darklama, and myself). An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind: there are much better ways of achieving consensus than trading barbs. --SB_Johnny ^talk 08:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sure he'd cut it out if you asked him to" <-- Your certainty about things you know little about is awe-inspiring. Moulton has informed me in writing that he feels compelled to ignore my advice. "I don't think I accused you of ridiculing 'enemies at Wikipedia'" <-- I suppose it is possible that you never bothered to read all the charges against me that you put your name on. When I first saw those charges I suspected that you would never engage in a discussion of those charges with me. When I initiated such a discussion I was prevented from engaging in the discussion on the page that had been created for that purpose. You then blocked me from editing the pages I created so that I could discuss the charges, an indef block made without a valid reason. You banned me from the #wikiversity-en channel without providing any reason. Now on this page you deny having charged me with having enemies at "Wikipedia and the foundation" and charging that my Wikiversity participation was guided by a desire to bring my "enemies to ridicule", even when I provide the link to the charge where you said that. I ask you again: retract the false charges you have made against me. It would also be civil and collegial if you explained why you made false charges against me and used those false charges to try to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodial status. "You did ridicule McCormack, Salmon of Doubt, Jade Knight, and Centaur of Attention" <-- I reject your characterization of my Wikiversity participation as "ridicule". I do examine and challenge the actions of others when I feel that their actions damage Wikiversity. If I describe someone's actions then that does not mean I am subjecting them to ridicule. If McCormack feels that I have subjected him to ridicule, then he should talk to me about that. Of course, since he publicly announced that he refuses to talk to me, he has limited his options. Rather than talk to me, he runs to others and makes false charges against me. Those others have attached their names to the false charges. I call on you to do the honorable thing and retract the false charges you have made against me. "the SU thing started when McCormack simply listed it on the RfD page" <-- and when McCormack realized that there was no consensus for deleting the main Wikiversity portal page for students, he then removed the link to the student union page from the introductory section of the Main Page. When I noticed and returned that link to the main page, McCormack then proposed turning the student union page into a redirect to another page that did not even mention students. McCormack has made many other edits at Wikiversity that marginalize students and limit student participation at Wikiversity. It is proper that I document his activities and bring them to the attention of Wikiversity participants. You might not like how I have done this, and we can discuss the details of my approach, but I cannot sit by silently, particularly when you say: "All that really needed to be done was to simply oppose the deletion," which is demonstrably false. When I opposed the page deletion, McCormack went on to remove the link to the page. When he could not get away with that trick, he tried to turn the page into a redirect. "There was no need to insinuate in multiple fora that the act of considering the deletion or reditect of a page amounted to abusing ... students" <-- I have made an analogy between 1) calling the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors "garbage" and deleting those contributions and 2) calling the work of students "garbage" and throwing away their work. I think this is a valid analogy that helps people think about the consequences of deleting the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors rather than welcoming new editors and helping them learn how to edit constructively. "You could have also moved to close the deletion discussion" <-- Please explain why it would have made sense for me to become involved in closing the student union deletion discussion. "If you felt you were being unfairly accused of something" <-- I'm kind of lost here ... are we still in the context of the the student union talk page discussion on September 5? Having edited at Wikipedia for many years I am very comfortable with personally dealing with false accusations made against me. I either ignore such claims (they are all too common) or ask people to provide evidence to support their claims. "An eye for an eye" <-- can you explain the relevance of this comment to our discussion? Are you saying that asking people to provide evidence to support their false claims is going to make the whole world go blind? "trading barbs" <-- I'm not sure what you view as "trading barbs", but when I describe the edits of others it is not "trading barbs", it is how a wiki editor tries to get people to think about what is going on and the goal is to correct problems in a wiki community. --JWSchmidt 16:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset tabs) OK, maybe a better way to discuss will be to just take the issues in your last comment and handle them one at a time.

9.27a

Your certainty about things you know little about is awe-inspiring. Moulton has informed me in writing that he feels compelled to ignore my advice.

Understood, and I apologize for that: he can indeed be rather bull-headed :-). I've found that if you just ask him to stop doing something as a friend (rather than advising him to do so), he'll generally oblige (he's not evil or anything). At this point we've taken to just rolling him back when he jumps in here.

9.27b

I suppose it is possible that you never bothered to read all the charges against me that you put your name on. When I first saw those charges I suspected that you would never engage in a discussion of those charges with me. When I initiated such a discussion I was prevented from engaging in the discussion on the page that had been created for that purpose. You then blocked me from editing the pages I created so that I could discuss the charges, an indef block made without a valid reason. You banned me from the #wikiversity-en channel without providing any reason. Now on this page you deny having charged me with having enemies at "Wikipedia and the foundation" and charging that my Wikiversity participation was guided by a desire to bring my "enemies to ridicule", even when I provide the link to the charge where you said that. I ask you again: retract the false charges you have made against me. It would also be civil and collegial if you explained why you made false charges against me and used those false charges to try to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodial status.

I read through the review and edited for grammar, checked links, etc., and removed some of the more hyperbolic statements. The review itself was written on another wiki, and the sections I did have time to closely look into were absolutely solid "cases", so I had no problems signing on to it. The part I'm most familiar with (SU, Albanian Ports, and related issues) are the parts we're discussing now, and your behavior just in those cases is more than enough to show the need for blocking "until guidelines are agreed upon". What I've been trying to get a feel for over the past week's conversation is whether you genuinely believe that your tactics in that dispute were perfectly normal and would not be considered "disruptive" or "offensive". The reason people have been reluctant to point that out to you is that they would expect anyone to see that they were disruptive and offensive. At this point I'm fairly convinced that you honestly don't know why people got so upset, so I'm going to do my best to help you see why they did. I'm going to re-read the rest now and think about how to respond (I do my best thinking on the tractor seat), but out of fairness I want to let you know that judging from what you've said so far you will not be unblocked very soon. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

absolutely solid "cases" <-- Before you blocked me, I started working through those cases, providing my POV here and in more detail here. All of the cases and charges I have looked at (including this) are full of false and twisted claims. Can you provide your definition of "absolutely solid"? "your behavior just in those cases is more than enough to show the need for blocking" <-- I made two learning resources and so I should be blocked from editing? Can you explain the logic of that? "they were disruptive and offensive" <-- In my view, they were informative and thought-provoking. "you honestly don't know why people got so upset" <-- Jade Knight took the time to explain why he got upset, so I understand his point of view. You still have never explained why what I did justifies blocking me and removing my custodianship. If you plan to ban the kind of learning resources I created, I would like to participate in discussions about such a ban. If you want to retroactively invent and enforce penalties against the kind of learning resources I made, then I think you are clearly abusing your powers. If you are offended by something I have done then we should discuss it. If there is a need to change Wikiversity policy, then we should discuss that. Rather than discuss with me why you are upset you have refused to discuss things with me and blocked me from discussing the false and twisted charges you made against me. You refuse to retract the false charges you made against me. I stand ready to listen to accounts of why people don't like the learning resources I made. "I'm going to do my best to help you see why they did" <-- then unblock me and let me continue the process of discussing matters with people like Jade Knight. "you will not be unblocked very soon" <-- You made a bad block. You did not provide a valid reason for the block. Your block is getting in the way of me responding to your false charges against me. Do the right thing and unblock me. You've made it clear that you have no intention of explaining your actions to me. I can live with that; I suspect you cannot explain your actions. Just get out of the way and let Wikiversity get back to work, your unjustified block of my editing is preventing me from discussing matters with people like Jade Knight who are willing to talk and reach consensus on content issues. --JWSchmidt 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You are blocked "until guidelines are agreed upon". It's quite clear from your responses here (and here and here) that you would indeed continue to be disruptive if you are unblocked without strong individual guidelines that you'll need to follow. --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"continue to be disruptive" <-- I created two learning resources that you do not like so you blocked me? The correct way to deal with content disputes is for the community to discuss the content and decide on how to deal with the disputed content. "It's quite clear ... you would indeed continue to be disruptive if you are unblocked" <-- How is that clear? You have have pointed to two learning resources that you do not like. I have defended those learning resources as providing important information to Wikiversity participants. This is a content dispute that should be settled by discussion. In fact, it was settled by discussion before you became involved and blocked me. I had constructive discussions with Jade Knight and I've told you repeatedly that because of those discussions I am now doing things differently. Thus, you know that your claim "you would indeed continue to be disruptive if you are unblocked" is false. Rather than retract your false charges against me you continue to manufacture new false charges against me: can you explain why you are doing this? --JWS 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really settled, it's just that one of the people involved gave up on Wikiversity. I didn't block you solely because you made those "learning projects" (although to be honest "learning project" leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth for many people these days), but in order to prevent further disruptive behavior on your part. The fact that you don't see why your behavior as disruptive is not the issue: the fact that your behavior is disruptive is the issue. Let's not waste time discussing the validity of the block, and instead see if we can find suitable guidelines for you to follow so that we can get you unblocked. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"It wasn't really settled" <-- I had constructive discussions with Jade Knight and I agreed to do things differently in the future. You can ignore that reality if you like, but I'd still like to know why you are so insistent on detaching yourself from reality. "prevent further disruptive behavior" <-- Your practice of making false charges against me and using them to try to justify your bad block is disruptive. That you characterize discussion of the bad block you imposed on me as a waste of time is just another indication of your inability to discuss things. "find suitable guidelines for you" <-- I've been working for years on Wikiversity guidelines and I am willing to follow those guidelines....I wish you were willing to do so also, but you seem to be hinting at a plan to make up some new rules in order to retroactively justify the bad block you imposed on me. Worse, you seem to be moving towards a new claim that I am somehow preventing you from making up these new rules, so you are going to give up on your desired "solution" to the bad block you imposed on me and just leave me blocked. Sorry, Johnny, but you imposed a bad block based on false charges. Now you seem to be gaming the system by suggesting that I am preventing you from making new guidelines. Just remove the bad block that you imposed on me. If you want to try to make new guidelines for Wikiversity then just get going and do it....I'm not stopping you. --JWSchmidt 04:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

9.27d

and when McCormack realized that there was no consensus for deleting the main Wikiversity portal page for students, he then removed the link to the student union page from the introductory section of the Main Page. When I noticed and returned that link to the main page, McCormack then proposed turning the student union page into a redirect to another page that did not even mention students. McCormack has made many other edits at Wikiversity that marginalize students and limit student participation at Wikiversity.

Okay, I can't really address some of the other points without first asking you a serious question: do you really think McCormack was trying to limit student participation at Wikiversity? --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He tried to delete the main student portal page, and when that effort failed he removed the link to the main student portal page from the introductory section of the main page. For several months (when I was busy in the real world) his removal of that link limited student participation at Wikiversity. When I returned that link to the main page, he tried to turn the main student portal page into a redirect to another page that did not even mention students. Do you really think that McCormack's actions did not limit student participation at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So without the Student Union (which you wrote, and then altered to become a scathing critique of a fellow contributor), student participation will be limited? McCormack opened a deletion discussion on this page, which had very little content, wasn't being developed, and so was arguably not complete or useful enough to be linked from the main page. I'm quite certain that he wasn't out to exclude students, and I'm just as sure that adding a personal critique of a fellow contributor would not make people (students or otherwise) want to contribute. --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"without the Student Union .... student participation will be limited?" <-- When Wikiversity was being created, several major groups of likely participants were identified. These groups include participants who self-identify as teachers, students and researchers. In order to help these groups participate at Wikiversity the introductory part of the Main Page usefully includes a statement such as "We invite teachers, students, and researchers to join us". In that Main Page statement it is useful to link the words "teachers", "students" and "researchers" to Wikiversity pages that help those specific types of participants to edit at Wikiversity. Removal of those links limits the ability of those groups to participate. The student union page was specifically designed to help guide self-identified students towards constructive participation at Wikiversity. Without that aid, self-identified students are left in the dark with respect to their role at Wikiversity. "which had very little content, wasn't being developed, and so was arguably not complete or useful enough to be linked from the main page" <-- if so (and I dispute these claims) then the correct thing to do is to improve the student union page. In my view, the student union page was carefully crafted for its intended purpose, it served its purpose, it did not need to be changed and it was useful for self-identified students to have a prominent link to the student union from the main page. "I'm quite certain that he wasn't out to exclude students" <-- Just like you were sure that Moulton will do things that I ask him to do? Sorry, but your judgments are demonstrably poor. Ask McCormack to summarize his views about student participation that he has posted to this wiki. "a personal critique of a fellow contributor" <-- are you saying that the learning resource I made for the student union was a "a personal critique of a fellow contributor"? If so, then that is another false charge. I made a learning resource that described the the actions of editors who had tried to delete the student union, remove an important link to the student union, turn the student union into a redirect and prevent discussion of these actions on the student union page. "would not make people (students or otherwise) want to contribute" <-- I do not agree. In my experience, students become very animated and involved when they are told about attempts by administrators to limit their participation in learning activities. In any case, if there is dispute over Wikiversity content, then the solution is to discuss content guidelines, not block people and prevent discussions. --JWS 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK John, I've read this seven times now, and I still don't know what to say to you, except that you're just plain wrong on every point.

I know you won't believe me, but I want to just tell you anyway that my goal in the past week's conversation was to come up with a simple agreement with you about avoiding disruptive and harmful actions so that we could get you unblocked and contributing again in a way that would also give reassurance to those who are hesitant to give you another chance. I was hoping to achieve that by yesterday, but your responses have been deeply disturbing, and I'm quite convinced that you should not be unblocked as things stand, and I'm not even sure you should ever be unblocked. Wikis work when people can get on the same page (literally), and when there are disputes, people need to be respectful of one another's interests, integrity, and feelings, and always be mindful and read the cues to know when you've stepped over the line. If what you've been telling me is true, you aren't able to read the cues. That's not a huge fault: a lot of people have a hard time reading those cues, especially in an online environment. But it is a huge fault if you're not aware of it, and are unwilling to accept a moderator. You don't seem to be aware of it, and you're not willing to trust your moderator (that's me, by the way). There's nothing I can do to help you become aware of it if you're not willing to take my word for it, so all I can really do is just tie your hands until your willing to accept my assistance (or someone else's assistance... there's just not many willing right now).

I'm going to take a week off from this so I can go work on the wiki in a normal way for a while. Please think about things, and keep in mind that I have absolutely no reason for wanting you blocked aside from preventing further disruption of the community. You said somewhere or another that if I didn't have enough time, I should just go on a break, but I'm willing to make the time to help you if you're willing to accept my help: that's what friends are for :-) --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"you're just plain wrong on every point" <-- but, of course, you do not need to support this claim, you just get to state it as fact. "my goal in the past week's conversation was to come up with a simple agreement with you about avoiding disruptive and harmful actions so that we could get you unblocked" <-- It is very simple. Just retract the false charges you have made against me and remove the bad block you imposed and tried to justify with the false charges you made. Before you blocked me I had useful discussions with Jade Knight and we found ways to move ahead without the types of learning resources that you do not like. We've gone over this repeatedly and you just keep ignoring the fact that the problem you are complaining about was solved before you blocked me. "Wikis work when people can get on the same page" <-- and this is why you have refused to discuss perceived problems with me and have made false charges against me and used those false charges to try to justify blocking me? "know when you've stepped over the line" <-- imposing an indef block without providing a valid reason for the block, trying to justify the block by making false charges, call discussion of the bad block a waste of time, refuse to retract the false claims you have made....how much further over the line do you intend to go? "unwilling to accept a moderator" <-- I'm not sure what this means. This is the first I have heard about a "moderator". Are claiming that you are playing the role of a moderator? I've never heard of a moderator who makes false charges against someone as part of their work as a "moderator". "There's nothing I can do" <-- You can retract the false charges you made against me, that would be an honorable starting point. "preventing further disruption of the community" <-- you've never bothered to explain how your block of me is preventing disruption. Jade Knight and I found new ways to move ahead before you you imposed your block on me. The block you imposed on me is preventing me from responding to all the false and twisted charges you made against me. "if you're willing to accept my help" <-- I've begged for your help and you've said that you refuse to discuss with me why you are upset with my edits and you've said that there is nothing you can do for me. I don't find it helpful when you press false charges against me and use those false charges to try to justify blocking me from editing. You seem to have vaguely suggested that there are new "guidelines" that can prevent future problems. Why not remove the bad block that you imposed on me and we can work together on new guidelines. --JWSchmidt 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny seems to be trying to get you unblocked and back to constructive editing. Why are you so hostile to his efforts? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but where is the evidence to support the thesis that "SB_Johnny seems to be trying to get JWSchmidt unblocked"? Since SBJ executed the block, he can unexecute it at will, if he had a will to do so. I don't understand what is stopping him from simply undoing his action. —Moulton 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"SB_Johnny seems to be trying to get you unblocked" <-- can you list the actions he has taken that suggest this to you? "hostile to his efforts" <-- Can you list my actions that you view as "hostile"? Asking him to provide a valid reason fo blocking me from editing? Asking his to retract the false charges he has made against me? Asking him to discuss with me what is bothering him? --JWSchmidt 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not a neutral third party, but what SB_Johnny is saying seems right to me. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary of previous discussion

below is a discussion summary that took place between Sept 21 and 26, 2008. as summarized by darklama.

SB_Johnny asked JWSchmidt to explain what he thinks his role was in the recent tensions that disrupted Wikiversity, what he could of done different in hindsight, and what he plans to do differently in the future. JWSchmidt asked SB_Johnny to explain and for clarification, because he did not understand the questions. Some back and forth discussion resulted in SB_Johnny trying to clarify his questions, and JWSchmidt providing some insights:

• He acknowledged that discussion of Topic:Wikipedia studies in #wikiversity-en has caused tension, feels he has repeatedly proposed many solutions, that he had put a lot of hard work into finding a solution. thought a solution had been agreed to, and feels SB_Johnny suddenly banned him from the channel without discussion or reason after a solution has been found.
• He acknowledges that Moulton's interest in the real world identities of wiki editors is another source of tension. He feels his participation in editing projects with Moulton were a constructive effort to move Moulton away from his interest in real world identities. JWSchmidt also pointed out that he spent weeks asking Moulton to stop directly.
• He believes that the tension and disruption to Wikiversity would be diminished by SB_Johnny unblocking him from the wiki and from the #wikiversity-en channel. He feels he worked to change and improve things, that his actions were positive and constructive, and SB_Johnny punished him for that. He wishes to hear an explanation for this behavior, and finds its truly hard to see what more he could do in the future. He has said if anyone has any suggestions to please talk to him, that he is truly interested in hearing ideas.
• He does not know or understand what he is expected to do differently, and cannot discuss possible changes for the future, until he has learned what aspects of his behavior was not liked or what mistakes he has made, and what is expected of or expected from him. He perceives many tensions, but thinks telling him which ones SB_Johnny is concerned about would be more efficient. He has stated that he stands ready to make changes if this were done. He thinks that expecting him to read individual's thoughts and notice that they are pissed is unreasonable.
• He provided two examples where he make a mistake, recognized his mistake and corrected it:

“ Recently in #wikiversity-en, darkcode (User:Darklama) was doing his usual good work to clean up problems at Wikiversity and I made a stupid and hurtful comment. I immediately realized that my comment was not helpful so I said it was inexcusable and tried to explain what I really wanted to say. I wish that on that day I had just gone and taken a nap rather than keep pushing myself to participate at Wikiversity. I like to think that had I taken a nap, I might have avoided making my mean-spirited comment. I also recently told Jade Knight that when we were editing a page together, I was having fun and I did not realize that my fun was not appreciated...in fact, I did not realize that my fun was just an intense source of irritation for others. I'm always trying new things, and usually I try new things and then let them drop and move on to other things. My initial expectation had been that I would just make a small learning project (a rather silly one!) and then move on. When Jade Knight joined in the editing of the page, I should have just stopped rather rather than keep trying to edit. --JWSchmidt 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC) ”

• He feels he did not get any meaningful reply to his question about what alternatives to his learning exercises existed. He feels this means that some types of learning projects will be black-listed, and he wishes to participate in any discussion related to black listing projects.
• He feels that User:Jade Knight is the only person who has had a discussed with him that increased mutual understanding. 1, 2, 3, 4. Given what he know now, he would of gone with Jade Knight's suggestion and made a page specifically for learning about page deletion and provide a link from the student union page to that other page.
• He did not know that anyone felt hurt. When he read, "which is probably intended to be offensive and provocative," he was puzzled. He did intend the learning exercise to be provocative in the sense that he thought it might stimulate student discussion on the student union page. He could not think of a reason why anyone would think that he intended the learning exercise to be offensive. His creation of a learning exercise on the student union page was an attempt to develop the page and make it more useful to students.

SB_Johnny suggested that JWSchmid be mindful of how his actions affect others.

[end summary]

---

Public pages

To let you know, the discussion on this page is quite public.

Easily searched: [4]

Other pages are easily searched: [5]

These pages could easily effect the reputation of JWSchmidt beyond Wikiversity. It could effect the reputation of others involved, also. Dzonatas 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dzonatas. I think that's a good thing to keep in mind! --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If people are concerned with this, than __NOINDEX__ could be added to this and other pages. This new magic word keeps pages from being indexed by search engines. --darklama 13:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the custodians of Wikiversity are stigmatizing JWSchmidt in a manner reminiscent of the hoary scapegoat dramas of yesteryear. —Caprice 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Several of us have been concerned that JWSchmidt had been stigmatizing other users. But tell me, Moulton, would it have been better for JWSchmidt to be blocked and then for the community to not discuss it at all? Would that be less stigmatizing? Personally, I think this discussion is important—and the issues being brought up are very important. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Several of us have been concerned that JWSchmidt had been stigmatizing other users" <-- Where have these concerns ween expressed? How have I stigmatized other users? By pointing out when specific users call other members of the community "troll"? By pointing out when users do not follow Wikiversity policy? By pointing out when users make false claims against other members of the community? --JWSchmidt 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you forgetting the entire "Review of JWSchmidt", as well as my, McCormack's, and others complaints about your "learning projects"? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he's following the lead of his mentor, Moulton, in ignoring everything that he dosen't agree with. Salmon of Doubt 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Are you forgetting..." <-- no, but when I search the "review" I fail to find discussion of "stigmatizing other users", so I asked you to tell me where there has been discussion of this. I still am asking, how have I stigmatized other users? --JWSchmidt 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"he's following the lead of his mentor, Moulton, in ignoring everything that he dosen't agree with" <-- this is a demonstrably false charge. Salmon of Doubt, please list in detail any issues you feel I have ignored. I will respond to each item on your list. "his mentor, Moulton" <-- Moulton is not my mentor. Can you explain what you are trying to accomplish by making the false claim that Moulton is my mentor? --JWSchmidt 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your creation of "Trout of Doubt." You have not pledged to not mock other contributors and you have not pledged to not create undisclosed sockpuppets. That's just for starters. Salmon of Doubt 14:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I follow the rules for alternative account usage. I have previously disputed the charge that the "Trout of Doubt" account was an undisclosed sockpuppet. The "Trout of Doubt" user page was created by me as a learning resource that I made primarily for myself to help me think through the proper use of user pages. When I made the page I did not expect that you would ever see it since it seemed that you had stopped participating at Wikiversity. I did not create the page in order to mock you. At Wikiversity we have a continuing process of reaching consensus about the correct uses for user pages. I made the "Trout of Doubt" user page as a learning resource to help me think about the correct use of user pages. Sometimes I make use of analogies and other learning aids in order to help people think about topics and the behavior of wiki editors. It is not my intent to use those analogies and other learning aids in order to mock people. --JWSchmidt 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My last edit before your creation of your abusive sockpuppet was Friday, Aug 29. You created the abusive sockpuppet on Sunday, Aug 31. Was I away for the weekend? How could you have known? Is it appropriate to mock contributors who have left the project? Is it appropriate to make sockpuppets here and not disclose that the sockpuppet is yours? If your learning aids are going to drive away other contributors, shouldn't you not be permitted to return to the project until such time as it's been ascertained that you have rectified your behavior such that are not going to drive away other contributors - for instance, by mocking them if they go away for the weekend?Salmon of Doubt 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept your characterization of the Trout of Doubt user page learning exercise as an "abusive sockpuppet". The page was part of my exploration of what constitutes valid uses of user pages. In my view, "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception". I created no online identity for the purpose of deception. I must say, that as far as I can tell, you came to Wikiversity and created the "Salmon of Doubt" identity in order to prevent the Wikiversity community from knowing your identity. I still wonder what you are trying to hide about your own identity. "Was I away for the weekend?" <-- after you started editing at Wikiversity I could not keep up with all of your edits. To me it seemed like you were here every day making many edits and that you intended to remain here until you could get Moulton banned. When you stopped editing, I mistakenly suspected that you had abandoned your assigned mission to get Moulton banned. "mock contributors" <-- the Trout of Doubt user page was not created to mock anyone. "drive away other contributors" <-- I do not understand how my learning exercise about Gandhi can "drive away other contributors". "you not be permitted to return to the project" <-- I understand that you came to Wikiversity with the intent of controlling who can and cannot participate at Wikiversity. I think your judgment about who can and cannot participate at Wikiversity is deeply flawed. Your violations of Wikiversity policy indicate that your participation here is what should be carefully examined and questioned. --JWSchmidt 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

JWSchmidt cannot edit this page

I cannot edit this page from my JWSchmidt account. --JWS 13:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you would get this error message, but I will try to fix it. --mikeu ^talk 13:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea here either... I didn't block your IP, just the username (which should be able to edit this page). Were you logged in? --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just tried blocking myself, and all seems to be working. Were the two IP edits yours? --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, redid the block, so try now and see. A new option appeared on the block dialog this morning that gives an option on whether you can edit your talk or not, and it might have toggled wrong for blocks that were made before that. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that did the trick. I can now edit this page again from this account. --JWSchmidt 14:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We are looking into submitting a bug report on this change to mediawiki software, to prevent this problem from happening to others. We are concerned that ips blocked in the past will not be able to edit the ip talk page to request unblock. This appears to be a problem caused by a recent software update. --mikeu ^talk 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Possible_reverse_compatibility_issue_with_old_blocks --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing

JWSchmidt, are you willing to state that

1. you realize that sometimes you upset others at Wikiversity and
2. some of those times you have been unaware that you upset them and
3. that you are willing to accept SB_Johnny's help so that in the future if it again happens damage to Wikiversity can be prevented or greatly limited?

I would imagine his help would take the form of letting you know

1. when to back off and "give it a rest" and
2. which forms of communication are disturbing people and
3. some suggestions for communicating in ways others find less upsetting.

I think if you agree to that you can be unblocked.

WAS 4.250 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that sometimes I upset others at Wikiversity. Some of those times I have been unaware that I upset them. I am willing to accept SB_Johnny's help to prevent or limit damage to Wikiversity. There is a reason it says at the top of this page, "If something I have done upsets you, please let me know." It also says, "I often like to explore the boundary between what is socially acceptable and what is outrageous," not in order to cause disruption but in order to explore what we can accomplish with wiki technology. An example of my lack of awareness was when I was editing with Jade Knight and I was having fun developing a rather silly learning project without realizing that I was really pissing him off. I had no problem apologizing for that and I have agreed not to make that kind of learning project again. SB_Johnny has suggested the idea of new guidelines that can keep me from "crossing the line". I'd like to participate in the crafting of such guidelines. --JWSchmidt 05:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Get in touch with Ottava on Wikipedia... he wrote some guidelines for himself there a while back which are a good starting point. I'm going to try to enlist a couple co-nominators. Do keep in mind that continuing to discuss the "charges" as "false, twisted, etc." will seriously slow down the process, since it's the sorts of things discussed there that you will need to avoid repeating. If you repeat them, you will be blocked again without warning. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny: "continuing to discuss the "charges" as "false, twisted, etc." will seriously slow down the process" <-- Do you honestly believe you can make false charges against me and then make me stop talking about how you pointed to those false charges in order to remove my custodianship and how you tried to use false charges to justify blocking me from editing? When I started to describe your false and twisted charges, you blocked me from editing and tried to justify doing so by making another false charge against me. When I saw the charges you made against me I suspected that you would never discuss them with me. Do you really think you can prevent me from responding to your false charges by misusing your power to block me? If you think you can publish false charges about me and then just block me in order to shut me up, you are wrong. "wrote some guidelines for himself" <-- I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be suggesting that you intend to import some guidelines from Wikipedia to Wikiversity. You have objected to some learning resources I made here at Wikiversity. I doubt if there are any useful guidelines at Wikipedia for telling you how to go about banning specific types of learning resources from Wikiversity. When there is a content dispute at Wikiversity the correct approach to resolving the dispute is community discussion. The Wikiversity community can now see that you do not respect the correct course of action for dealing with content disputes. In the case of the two learning resources you object to, other members of the community discussed the content and found ways to move ahead. You did not participate in those discussions. After those content disputes were resolved by community discussion, you misused your custodial power and blocked me from editing. "seriously slow down the process" <-- you are the one who is slowing down the process. All you have to do is retract the false charges you made against me and remove the bad block you imposed on me...then we can all get back to building Wikiversity. "you will be blocked again without warning" <-- Does this mean you intend to make a habit of misusing your custodial powers? You have made errors that you will need to avoid repeating. I have long experience helping wiki communities remove abusive sysops who habitually misuse their tools. "you will be blocked again" <-- Your threat to keep misusing your custodial powers will not stop me from talking about the false and twisted charges you made against me, or your misuse of the blocking tool. It is sad that the only way you know how to behave as a custodian is as if you are dealing with a vandal....that's not the way to deal with a content dispute. --JWSchmidt 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, nelly :-). Slow down, and try talking to Ottava. Or don't. You can use your user talk to respond to the "charges", write your own guidelines, or just vent. I'll be here when you've calmed and have had a chance to realize that I'm not the enemy or out to get you. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, you and JWSchmidt aren't even playing the same sport, much less in the same league. Or at least I hope you're not. In any case, please just stay out of this, unless you think you've been productive on behalf of your friend Ms. Picard, eh? --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'll be here when you've calmed" <-- You have repeatedly made false claims about me not being calm. I am calm. It looks to me like that is just a convenient way for you to continue your delay in reversing the bad block you imposed on me. "You can use your user talk to respond to the 'charges'" <-- You remind me of a corrupt sheriff who throws someone in jail and then says, "if you have a complaint, feel free to write it on the wall of your jail cell." At the very least you need to provide a link from here to the page section on this page where I will continue to respond to the false and twisted charges you have made against me. --JWSchmidt 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple

John, and guys,

These conversations are way too convoluted. Please, everyone, direct your attentions to facts and not persons or conjectures. Wouldn't you like to start simple, like: Johnny, McCormac or Cormaggio (or any of the bureaucrats or anyone who feels like it) can say: you did that ([diff]); it made so and so unhappy; here is why (one short paragraph). And stop. John may explain why he did that, and how he thinks about it now, and stop. And then the involved person can comment on that. And John can reply, and so on. Say how you feel, not how you think others have felt (like "so and so was clearly hurt"), unless you are quoting directly from that person. We have had enough misunderstandings and we should not generate more. And, Johnny, David Hilbert has once said that it is not too much to explain the same thing to a student five times (or something like that).

And let me add that I have found Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt far too intimidating. It is structured as a report of the four bureaucrats from the beginning; its point of views were declared (that those actions of John were problematic) even before John had a chance to answer. So what I am asking for is something different: a simple and genuine dialogue; where everybody listens to each other, and everyone has the patience to answer questions, even if they have said it before.

I would urge everyone to throw out all the baggages and start from the beginning. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• John, Let me start with a simple question:

This [6] and previous edits to the template:deletion request include such texts as "getting the deletionist mad", "suppress your editing at Wikiversity", "destroying your contribution to Wikiversity". Some people [7], and I also, think your edits are too opinionated (and "not exactly polite"). Darklama even felt that your edits shew "anger or frustration"[8]. Do you agree? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Do you agree?" <-- I admit that it is frustrating when some Wikiversity participants are not willing to let us use methods such as Template:Welcome and expand to help guide editors towards ways to improve good faith contributions to Wikiversity. I have been exploring how to deal with deletionism in wiki communities for years. I admit that I got angry once while dealing with one specific example of deletionism. That one occasion was several years ago when a bot tried to delete some files I had uploaded to Wikipedia. The bot claimed that the files were not correctly licensed, but, in fact, I had correctly licensed them and the bot was just incapable of reading English. I became angry when the person running the bot refused to acknowledge that the bot wrong. I learned from that experience that it does no good to become angry when people try to delete the good faith contributions of other wiki editors. Through the years, I've learned that sometimes it is possible to limit deletionism if I make noise when deletionists become active. The noise attracts attention and then the wiki community can reach consensus about how to deal with the deletionism. "your edits are too opinionated" <-- I'm willing to participate in discussions about how I make "noise when deletionists become active". I feel I have had a productive discussion about this with Jade Knight. I welcome further discussions. --JWSchmidt 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who would not let you use methods such as the aforementioned template? And, as I stated in our productive discussion, the "noise" seems inappropriate to me and many others. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Who would not let you use methods such as the aforementioned template?" <-- Well, for example, you. When you saw a page that was using the "welcome and expand" template, you tried to delete the page. "the 'noise' seems inappropriate to me and many others" <-- In my experience, people who try to delete the good faith contributions of their fellow wiki editors seldom like to listen when other people object. If you object to an edit I make, then we can discuss your objection. I have engaged in such discussions and I feel that those discussions led to relatively stable consensus for the pages where such objections were raised. After that consensus was reached, I was blocked from editing, with no valid reason given for the block. "what SB_Johnny is saying seems right to me" <-- You think it is right for him to block me without giving a valid reason for the block and then vaguely suggest that some new guidelines might be made for Wikiversity and then he will unblock me? Do you think it is "right" for him to make false charges against me and try to use those false charges to justify blocking me and removing my custodial status? You think it is "right" for him to block me from editing and responding to the false and twisted charges he has made against me? --JWSchmidt 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing a page for community discussion over potential deletion in no way would not let you use the aforementioned template, etc.

Use of the "welcome and expand template" means that a Wikiversity participant has looked at a small page and decided that the page is about a valid topic that can be expanded in the future by other editors. If you then decide to delete that page, you are not allowing the welcome and expand template to be used for its purpose of helping guide editors in the expansion and development of the page. --JWSchmidt 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely; you could still guide editors in the expansion and development of that page, and adding the delete template doens't change this at all; it simply flags the page to bring it to community attention. It does not immediately stop anyone from contributing to the page. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

By calling for the deletion of such a page you are trying to prevent the intended function of the "welcome and expand template" and have the page deleted. In cases where a valid reason is given for deleting the page, I have no objection to there being a community discussion about the page. When the deletion template is thrown on a such a page and there is no valid reason given for deleting the page then I feel it is a violation of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, when I call for the deletion of a page, I am definitely not trying to prevent useful content from being added to Wikiversity; on the contrary, I'm trying to encourage the addition of useful content by clearing space for it. People are certainly welcome to add useful, relevant content to a page while discussion is ongoing; in fact, doing so can certainly affect the discussion. So, adding that template doesn't prevent content from being added at all. Actually, to give you an idea: someone once listed one of the pages I started at Wikipedia for speedy deletion. Now, this was improper; it should have been listed for standard deletion, not speedy. However, I contested the speedy, and they changed it to a standard deletion discussion. During that discussion, I expanded the page and added over half a dozen references attesting to its notability. I would not have gone to the effort so quickly had the page not been nominated for deletion. So, as a direct result of the deletion request, the page was improved. Discussion over deletion can actually really help facilitate the development of content, especially where due respect is accorded to the page creator, and good faith is assumed (as was the case with this particular page at Wikipedia; granted, many deletion discussions at Wikipedia fail in these regards, but that doesn't seem to be the case at Wikiversity, in my experience). The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that all of the charges were false; there may indeed be a difference of opinion, but as it is your actions which are offending many others in the community, I feel it is particularly appropriate for you to come to an understanding of how and why your actions offended others, and for you to try to figure out (with the help of others, if desired) how you can avoid doing likewise in the future. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said that all the charges are false, but it is a matter of simple justice to remove the false charges, particularly when they have been used to try to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodial status. So far I have had a chance to respond to eight of the charges and all eight of those are, when not false, distortions of reality. It is very difficult to "come to an understanding" when we are asked to build that understanding on false charges and distorted charges. Before I was blocked I was engaged in the process of coming to an understanding with other editors, then I was blocked without a valid reason for the block and I was prevented from continuing the process of coming to an understanding with other editors. The block was not valid and the block has disrupted the process of coming to an understanding with other editors. --JWSchmidt 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Frustration begets frustration; good will begets good will?

(branching)

• John, In your first reply to my question above, you said, "I admit that it is frustrating when...". Let us pause here. Do you think that a frustrated editor editing frustratedly would cause frustration to others? An upset or angry editor would do something which make others upset or angry? Do you agree that it is possible (or even likely) that the edits you performed under frustration would make other Wikiversitians upset? :-( And, conversely, when you are editing happily, others will become happy, too? :-) Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I could probably take a hint from that question re: my editing in Wikipedia… The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Do you agree that it is possible (or even likely) that the edits you performed under frustration would make other Wikiversitians upset?" <-- Yes, of course. I spent three years trying to make Wikiversity a safe and productive environment for young people who are trying to learn how to participate in WMF wiki projects. My efforts were countered by other editors who seem to enjoy calling the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors "garbage" and deleting the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors. I know that some Wikiversity participants feel that it is their right to delete the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors without making any attempt to welcome, understand and help the young people who are trying to learn how to participate in WMF wiki projects. I know that some of the Wikiversity participants feel that it is their right to delete the good faith contributions of Wikiversity editors get upset as soon as their actions are challenged. I know that some Wikiversity participants like to ignore me when I ask them to let other Wikiversity participants use methods such as the "welcome and expand" template to help wiki editors learn how to participate in WMF wiki projects. I have dealt with this problem for years on multiple wikis. In my experience, it is useful to bring these kinds of problems into the open so that a wiki community can reach consensus on page deletion rather than just allow a few deletionists to run wild. In my experience, the deletionists tend to complain bitterly when they are restricted from deleting the good faith contributions of other wiki editors. I am used to this kind of behavior and I still think it is important to challenge deletionists and make sure that a wide segment of the wiki community discusses the issue of page deletion. It can be painful for a wiki community when deletionists complain bitterly and proclaim their right to delete the good faith contributions of other wiki editors. However, I feel it is best that the issue of page deletion be confronted by wiki communities, even if the process is painful. I'm open to suggestions for how to limit the pain involved. --JWSchmidt 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

John, Do you call these edits ([9]) good faith edits? They look like test edits, consisting of two lines of opinions. There is not any researched facts, and anything that was written was hardly relevant to the title. If someone genuinely interested in Albania or sea ports found this page, he would have been disappointed. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the person editing from 142.214.59.145 was a new wiki editor and that English is probably not their first language. I think the person is interested in Albania and needs help learning to use wiki as a tool for exploring that interest. "If someone genuinely interested in Albania or sea ports found this page, he would have been disappointed" <-- do we need a disclaimer that says "you might be disappointed at Wikiversity"? Erkan removed the questionable content and added the "welcome and expand" template. This is the way wiki works. Just because someone is misguided it does not mean that they are not making a good faith effort to contribute. --JWSchmidt 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

oversight

One edit containing only vandalism and personal information (ie. phone numbers) by Moulton 2DFS (block log) has been removed from the history of this page by a steward at my request. --mikeu ^talk 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So now what?

I'm sorry you haven't gotten any replies today, but some people are busy with real life stuff, other people are busy chasing Moulton around, and still others are just not sure what to say to you. Hopefully things will be better tomorrow or the next day.

You've told me that you have a hard time getting a feel for how other people are feelig about things, and I believe you. I don't have a hard time doing that, so here's my sense of things: everyone who's been unsure about why you're blocked now has a better idea about why you're blocked. That includes me. What you need to do is to give assurance that you'll not be so disruptive again if unblocked. If you really, honestly don't understand why you are blocked, you should really just walk away. --SB_Johnny ^talk 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, That is a very bad idea - I mean the last thing you said. How did we come to it? Johnny, since you have not been successful in building a dialogue with John, why don't you back off for a bit and let others like Cormaggion and Jade Knight do the talking? The flowers are beautiful. Best wishes, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

John, 退一步，海闊天空。 Take it easy. Don't let this hiccup derail the course of wikiversity! Best wishes, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"You've told me that you have a hard time getting a feel for how other people are feelig about things" <-- When wiki editors do not discuss their feelings with me it is hard to know their feelings. "I don't have a hard time doing that" <-- I'm greatly impressed by people who can read the thoughts of others....sadly I never got the genes for telepathy. "everyone who's been unsure about why you're blocked now has a better idea about why you're blocked" <-- I'm also impressed by your ability to speak for others. Personally, I'm still waiting to see a valid reason for the block. It is the obligation of the blocking sysop to provide a valid reason for a block when the block is made. You failed to do that. "That includes me" <-- I don't know what this means...does it mean that you blocked me without having a reason but now you have invented one that allows you to feel it was a good block? "What you need to do is to give assurance that you'll not be so disruptive again if unblocked" <-- before you blocked me I had constructive discussions with other editors, particularly Jade Knight and I said that I would do things differently in the future. Somehow that did not satisfy you and you blocked me...I have still not seen a valid reason for the block. If you have additional concerns and need additional assurances then you need to tell me what is on your mind. Maybe some of your concerns are in the charges you have made against me that I have not had a chance to respond to. In any case, you should remove the block you imposed on my editing and let me continue to respond to the charges you made against me. "you should really just walk away" <-- you failed to provide a valid reason for the block. I think it is absurd that you suggest I should walk away when you have made false charges against me, blocked me and prevented me from responding to all the false and twisted charges you made against me and tried to use those false charges to "justify" the block you imposed on me and the removal of my custodianship. I'm not walking away from Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Don't let this hiccup derail the course of wikiversity" <-- there is very little I can do now that I am limited to editing this one page. --JWSchmidt 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Community Review

I assume you've seen this? It looks like there is a fair amount of support (SB Johnny and myself included) for unblocking you. If you could make a single statement to add there, what would you say? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

response from JW, formatted a bit by privatemusings, follows;

If you could make a single statement to add there, what would you say?

there is much I would like to say. First I would thank Emesee and Hillgentleman for standing up against SB_Johnny's abusive and intimidating misuses of his custodianship and #wikiversity-en ops tools. As pointed out by Darklama, I have not misused my custodial or checkuser tools. Nor have I misused my #wikiversity-en ops tools, yet I am banned from #wikiversity-en (and no reason was given by SB_Johnny when he made the ban) and I remain blocked from editing Wikiversity while SB_Johnny remains free to continue issuing false charges against me. SB_Johnny failed to provide a valid reason when he blocked me.

SB_Johnny has tried to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodianship by making use of the false claims he has made against me. SB_Johnny blocked me from editing, thus preventing me from responding to all of the false and distorted charges he made against me. When I requested unblock and pointed out the fact that he had blocked me without providing a valid reason for the block, he denied me unblock and still did not provide a valid reason for the block or for his refusal to unblock me. At the very least he should have let another custodian process the unblock request rather than continue to misuse his power to keep in place an invalid block.

I agree with Hillgentleman that it was not correct for SB_Johnny to stop the community review process before it was complete and use the incomplete review as justification for having my custodial and checkuser tools removed.

"I think Review of JWSchmidt was done in an attempt to satisfy JWSchmidt's request that people who had issues with him, list what problems they had with him and to provide evidence or such"

I do not agree with this hypothesis. I think one Wikiversity participant who had previously called me a "troll" wrote the "review" and took it to SB_Johnny. SB_Johnny then did not even carefully read and evaluate the charges that were made; he just put his name on it and posted it on wiki. The review is full of false and distorted charges, but SB_Johnny continues to try to use those false and distorted charges to "justify" his misuse of his sysop and IRC channel ops tools to block me from editing and to ban me from #wikiversity-en.

SB_Johnny: "Both the block and the removal of status were decided after seeing JWS's replies to the review"

The fact is, I was still in the process of responding to the false and distorted charges in the review. SB_Johnny's position seems to be that it is irrelevant that he made false and distorted charges against me and used those charges to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodianship. In my view, there has never been any discussion of the false and distorted charges against me nor was there ever any intention that there be such discussion. The false and distorted charges made against me were used as an excuse to block me and remove my custodial powers. SB_Johnny continues to make false charges such as "absolutely nothing would give the impression that he would not repeat this in the future".

First, by "this" I assume that SB_Johnny means the learning exercises I made concerning page deletion: this is what SB_Johnny told me by phone he was upset about. I had discussions with other editors of the "Albanian sea port history" and student union pages and I agreed not to put learning resources related to page deletion on pages like that in the future. Thus, after the community had already resolved that matter by discussion and consensus, SB_Johnny then blocked me. In other words, SB_Johnny ignored the on-wiki evidence that disproves his false claim that "absolutely nothing would give the impression that he would not repeat this in the future".

SB_Johnny claims that my two learning resources on page deletion were a "way of making a point" that was so disruptive that I need to be blocked from editing Wikiversity. This is an absurd claim. If SB_Johnny wants to dispute the validity of a learning resource I make he needs to participate in the conventional wiki process of discussing the learning resource with me. It is a clear misuse of his sysop tools to block me from editing because he does not like two learning resources that I made, learning resources that I am fully prepared to defend as valid and useful learning resources.

"brought to the point of bullying as he responded with inappropriate tones"

SB_Johnny does not like my "tone" and he claims it has approached the point where that tone can be called "bullying". This is an interesting claim that I dispute. I call upon SB_Johnny to list my edits that he thinks are "bullying" and let me respond to his charge that I have been "bullying". In my view, SB_Johnny's actions which include blocking me without providing a valid reason, banning me from #wikiversity-en without giving any reason and trying to "justify" blocking me and removing my custodianship by making use of the false charges he has made against me is bullying and clear misuse of his sysop and ops tools.

We also saw a blatant misuse of ops privledges on irc. Salmon of Doubt had requested that Moulton be kicked (he was posting private correspondence, names and email addresses of people who had not given consent to do so). When Salmon asked who had ops, JWS opped himself, but did not kick or ban... he was just showing who had the tools. Salmon had been treated rather badly by JWS and Moulton on the channel prior to this, and felt this action was done in a threatening way (which is quite understandable). A second time Moulton was doing similar things I myself had asked JWS to kick him, but again he refused (I got ops later that day, as did all the 'crats and the other custodians who are regulars on the channel).

this is typical of the false charges that SB_Johnny continues to make against me.

"Salmon had been treated rather badly by JWS"

I dispute this charge. SB_Johnny needs to list in detail what I did and let me respond to the specifics of this charge.

"Salmon...felt this action was done in a threatening way (which is quite understandable)"

I dispute this charge. The question was asked if anyone with ops was present. We were discussing if ops action was needed in the channel. In order to answer the question and be prepared to take ops action I activated my ops. There was no threat, no implied threat and no reasonable basis upon which Salmon could feel threatened by my action. I dispute SB_Johnny's claim that it is understandable that Salmon felt threatened by me. I dispute SB_Johnny's claim that my actions constitute a "blatant misuse of ops privledges".

SB_Johnny says, "I myself had asked JWS to kick him," but SB_Johnny fails to describe the fact that no valid reason had been given for kicking Moulton. In short, SB_Johnny asked me to misuse channel ops, I refused to do so, and then SB_Johnny later misused channel ops to ban be from the channel without giving any reason for doing so. It is clear that SB_Johnny (and not I) misused channel ops and yet he continues to falsely claim just the opposite. SB_Johnny said, "In the discussions leading up to the action, we all felt it was completely inappropriate for someone who treated people that way to have sysop tools" <-- SB_Johnny still has not told me what he means by "treated people that way". I can only assume that what he means is, for example, SB_Johnny's false claim that I threatened Salmon and SB_Johnny's false claim that I misused IRC channel ops. In other words, SB_Johnny continues to try to "justify" his own misuse of his custodial tools and IRC channel ops by making false charges against me.

"he and Moulton were having long and public conversations on the IRC channel about the real identities of pseudonymous users"

Such charges are vague and meaningless in the abstract. I demand that SB_Johnny frame this charge in the context of specific examples so that I can defend myself against his charges. For example, I was engaged in a Wikipedia Studies research project that included analysis of edits made by a user account that had three Wikipedia edits. All of those edits were made in violation of Wikipedia's policy. That "throw-away account" was made by an experienced Wikipedia editor in order to avoid the consequences of violating policy. Wikipedia policy calls on Wikipedians to be watchful for just this kind of account. Every day Wikipedians discover such accounts, discuss them and deal with the people who create such accounts.

As a Wikipedian, it is perfectly natural for me to engage in the analysis of such accounts. As a Wikiversity participant, it is perfectly natural for me to explore examples such as this in order to think about how to prevent future damage to Wikipedia biographies of living persons. I wonder why SB_Johnny wants to ignore the facts of my actions and instead try to smear me with a vague claim that my actions were not appropriate. I spent weeks telling Moulton that nobody at Wikiversity is particularly interested in the real world identities of wiki editors and that he should stop showing an interest in the real world identities of wiki editors.

I modified the Wikiversity privacy policy so as to make this explicit and asked Moulton to take that policy to heart. It is deceptive for SB_Johnny to vaguely suggest that I have had inappropriate discussions with Moulton about "the real identities of pseudonymous users". I demand that SB_Johnny list the specifics and let me respond in detail to his charges against me.

"The block was intended to just give JWS some time to cool off"

based on a short conversation I had with SB_Johnny by phone and the talk page discussion I have had with SB_Johnny since the block, I doubt if SB_Johnny is providing a complete and accurate account when he says, "The block was intended to just give JWS some time to cool off". I was "cool" and the main thing the block accomplished was preventing me from responding to the false charges he had made against me.

"his responses to the 'review' showed anything but regret for the unfair treatment he had been giving people"

It is not clear what SB_Johnny expects me to show regret about. All I know is that he seems to think I showed "unfair treatment" towards Salmon on IRC, but I dispute that charge against me. I have repeatedly asked SB_Johnny to discuss with me what he is unhappy about and he has repeatedly refused to do so. Maybe he still has concerns about some of the charges he made against me but which I have not yet had a chance to respond to. He should unblock me and let me respond to all the charges he made against me.

"JWS either really believes his behavior was perfectly appropriate, or he refuses to admit that it was"

SB_Johnny has made false and distorted charges against me and SB_Johnny refuses to retract the false charges and he refuses to let me respond to all the distorted charges. SB_Johnny seems to expect me to accept that false charges against me are true and to issue some sort of public statement saying that I performed those acts (the ones that he falsely claims I performed). This is an absurd expectation on the part of SB_Johnny. If SB_Johnny wants to make progress towards a happy future for Wikiversity he needs to retract the false charges he has made against me and remove the bad block that he imposed upon me.

"I really don't see a good way forward that involves unblocking at this point."

SB_Johnny made a bad block, without providing a valid reason for the block and he continues to try to "justify" his misuse of custodial power by making false charges against me. It is clear that SB_Johnny intends to keep me blocked and he intends to prevent me from fully responding to all the false charges he makes against me. I would also like to include on that page a description of the false charges that have been made against me because I have been prevented from doing that in a Wikiversity community forum. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you abide by this?

I suggested a couple guidelines on Wikiversity:Community_Review#Interpretation, specifically for you to follow, but generally for everyone to follow. Is that both understandable and acceptable? --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Any and all disagreements between Wikiversity participants should be discussed either on the talk page of a resource (in the case of an edit dispute), on the participants' user talk pages (as informal dialog), on the Community Review page (or a subpage thereof, if informal dialog fails and community input is desired), or on WV:RCA (or a subpage thereof, if use of one or more sysop tools may be needed to prevent escalation or disruption). Other resources (including main namespace pages, portal-like pages, etc.) may not be used for this purpose.
2. Wikiversity participants are expected to treat their peers with respect and courtesy, assume good faith, and not make negative comparative references as a way of making a point (this includes making parody sockpuppets, comparing maintenance tasks or other editing to abusing children, war crimes, etc.).

If the basic idea of these "rules" is that Wikiversity should be governed by discussion between Wikiversity participants then I agree with the basic spirit of these two "rules", but as you noted, they are very broad and some care is needed to make sure that the intent of these "rules" will not be forgotten and the "rules" taken too far. For example, Wikiversity has useful learning resources in the main namespace that are extended discussions between Wikiversity participants who have disagreements about some topic. Such discussions on main namespace pages are "learn by doing" exercises that allow Wikiversity participants to explore the ideas of others and to debate controversial topics. One of the explicitly stated purposes of Wikiversity that was approved by the Foundation was that we can have learning methods such as "debate clubs". Thus, I feel that main namespace can be a place to discuss disagreements between Wikiversity participants. This is appropriate and it serves the educational mission of Wikiversity that some disagreements between Wikiversity participants are discussed not on talk pages, but on main namespace pages. In particular, we have Category:Wikiversity studies and I have been thinking about participating at pages such as Ethical Management of the English Language Wikiversity/Case Studies/Deletionism. I think the Wikiversity community needs to be sensitive to the fact that the approved Wikiversity project proposal includes the idea that we can have main namespace learning projects that will include discussion of disagreements between Wikiversity participants. Your proposed "Any and all" restriction might be well intended, but it is clearly not the correct solution for Wikiversity, even if you do not personally respect the contents of the approved Wikiversity project proposal. I think the Wikiversity community needs to be sensitive to the fact that your proposed "rule" is not suited to Wikiversity and it is particularly offensive to see people lining up to prematurely vote support for this "rule" before there has been any discussion of it by people who have actually read and taken to heart the Wikiversity project proposal. It is the job of bureaucrats to help guide a wiki community towards consensus at difficult times. SB_Johnny, you are supposed to listen to reasoned arguments and use your knowledge of the Wikiversity mission as a guide to help the community establish consensus. Further, bureaucrats are supposed to recuse themselves from situations in which they are personally involved in a dispute. In my view, you are failing to meet these important obligations to the community. You might have good intentions, but I think you need to step aside in this case and stop functioning as a ring leader for a continuing series of bad decisions. Before you blocked me I had already reached agreement with others not to include learning resources about page deletion on pages such as "Albanian sea port history" and the student union. As I have explained previously, the community had already established consensus on these content issues before you showed up and blocked me. We already have Wikiversity:Consensus as a "rule" that I view as the correct starting place for dealing with content disputes such as those that arose at "Albanian sea port history" and the student union. If you want to make additions/modifications to Wikiversity:Consensus or propose new policies, then that should be done in a formal way that allows extended community discussion. In short, I'd rather remain under your bad block than allow my unblocking to become an excuse for forcing into existence a new bogus rule that explicitly violates the spirit of the approved Wikiversity project proposal. I certainly agree with the spirit of the proposed "rule #2", but it also has problems. I agree that Wikiversity participants are expected to treat their peers with respect and courtesy and assume good faith, but there seems to be a wide divergence in beliefs about what constitutes "respect and courtesy" and when one can abandon "assume good faith". For example, I do not think it shows respect and courtesy for you to block me from editing without providing a valid reason, to ban me from #wikiversity-en without providing any reason and to try to justify those actions and removal of my custodianship by pointing to false charges that you have made against me. I do not think it shows respect and courtesy for you and others to call Wikiversity participants "troll" and refuse to discuss issues with people and instead just bring out the ban hammer and treat people like vandals. In short, based on your past behavior, I doubt if you are able to fairly abide by the idea that Wikiversity participants be treated with respect and courtesy. "not make negative comparative references as a way of making a point (this includes making parody sockpuppets, comparing maintenance tasks or other editing to abusing children, war crimes, etc.)" <-- It sounds like you want to create Wikiversity:Censorship policy. Please feel free to start such a page. I think it is absurd to propose that nobody at Wikiversity can make "negative comparative references". Making "negative comparative references" is part of scholarly analysis of issues and topics. You can use the euphemism "maintenance tasks" to refer to deleting the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants, but I know what you are talking about. I will not agree to give out a blank check to deletionists just in order to get you to lift the bad black you imposed on me. As I mentioned above, I have been thinking about participating at Wikiversity Studies pages that might involve using "negative comparative references" in order to help the Wikiversity community explore the costs and implications of deleting the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants. In my view, any time a Wikiversity participant uses a "negative comparative reference", other Wikiversity participants are free to discuss the educational value of the "negative comparative reference". At Wikiversity we are supposed to resolve disputes and reach consensus by discussion. I will want to participate in development of any proposed Wikiversity:Censorship policy. I certainly do not trust your judgment about which topics and which learning tools can be banned from Wikiversity. In summary, I believe the intent of these proposed rules is that respectful discussion should be the basis for dispute resolution at Wikiversity. I support the idea that respectful discussion should be the basis for dispute resolution at Wikiversity. The details of the proposed "rules" are full of problems that I object to. I think it is an abuse of your power to suggest that I have to agree to these "rules" before I can be unblocked. You should step aside and stop compounding the abuse of your custodial power. If you cannot bring yourself to lift the bad block you imposed on me, then just say that you are standing aside and will respect the community decision that I should be unblocked. --JWSchmidt 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, 4 things:

1. Debate clubs are absolutely fine, but just make sure that both sides are interested in having the debate if it's going to be a "club". If there's a serious disagreement over something and it's not "just a debate", it should be handled either privately or with community input when there's an impasse.
2. Your analogies between deletion discussion and being abusive to schoolchildren were really appalling and offensive, and is already covered by the civility policy.
3. I was planning on unblocking last night or this morning, but I want to wait a few hours at this point to see if there's any new concerns voiced after the vote-counting move (IOW, let's try to be sure no-one thinks their concerns are being dismissed).
4. You don't have to agree, I just wanted your opinion. I do agree that the guidelines would need to be finessed considerably before enacting as a regular policy, but for now they'll do insofar as making people more comfortable with the unblock.

See you in a few hours. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

G'day JW

and welcome back :-)

I've begun work on collecting my thoughts in an Ethics Sandbox, with the intention of trying to help a Wikiversity 'Wikimedia Ethics' project make some sense eventually :-) - I thought I'd drop a note in to a couple of places to get some advice and feedback ahead of diving in and mercilessly editing in the project space :-) cheers, Privatemusings 03:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User boxes

I guess if I ask for assistance with fixing the disorganized appearance of my user boxes that would be a request for custodial assistance. Is that right? Okay so my question: would you please help me clean up the boxes on my user page, that are as crooked as can be? Thanksrecovery psychologist 03:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Help wanted... :-)

Hi John. 2 things I was hoping you could add some thoughts to: first, I want to see if Wikiversity:Think tank could become a useful thing, and second I'm wondering if you might engage in some (gentle) dialog about the local culture with Mike.lifeguard. I assume you're still of the same mind about having him as a checkuser here, and I'm probably going to nominate him for that sometime tonight or tomorrow (very busy with non-wiki stuff today).

I've also been thinking a lot lately about resources for parents... it's been a while since we chatted about that, but I'm wondering if you've been thinking about it at all, and if you have any ideas. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reflections on your block

Hi John, I've posted some reflections on your block, as well as a somewhat broader narrative on some context, at User:Cormaggio/Block on JWSchmidt. As I say there, I'd really welcome comments etc. I've more to say about specific things you've said above, but I thought that I would keep these mostly to your talk page, where we can continue our discussion - hopefully on a better footing. Talk to you soon, Cormaggio ^talk 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

If Wikiversity is to survive as an authentic learning community, it is important that the community leaders of Wikiversity set an example that reflects the ideals and practices of an authentic learning community. Some of the practices employed here in recent weeks substantially depart from the normative practices of an authentic learning community. I hope that, going forward, such misadventures will not recur, and that Wikiversity will acquit itself of the concerns that it has veered off course from the demeanor of an authentic scholarly enterprise. —Moulton 06:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --JWSchmidt 15:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Better footing?

John, I want to be clear on a number of things, to keep our discussion on track:

• Your editing has caused hurt, offence and/or concern among a number of people in the community (eg. Jade Knight, Darklama, McCormack, Salmon of Doubt) - which has been documented and presented to you - and it is this effect on others that myself, Mikeu and SB_Johnny have also been concerned about, and have been reacting to - as well as what we have observed ourselves. And, as I see it, judging from several subsequent reactions from them, I do not believe that their concerns have been dealt with on the basis of your own claims about your activity and your intentions. I, personally, have certainly not been assuaged by your reaction to the highlighting of your activity - sadly, quite the contrary. So that's by way of general context - even if your perceptions are different.
• Your block was a temporary one, with the sole intention of curbing the disruption that your editing had caused, and forcing you to take a reflective look at your editing, with the hopes of setting some guidelines which would address the concerns raised. It was not solely based on your inviting Moulton to work on research guidelines (and the related "false charges" you've been explicitly mentioning represent a relatively very small part of my personal concerns). I'm not sure if the block was clearly enough communicated to you - if it wasn't, then I'm very sorry about that.
• I'm fully aware that you've made some future-looking concessions on pages and processes that caused concern - and I think these are good steps in the right direction. I would encourage you to continue working on these as personal reflections, which could be worked into community guidelines. I would like to work on these with you, and I agree that we need to take a broad look at these principles with the Wikiversity mission in mind - I think you've raised some valid points of critique so far.
• Even though this episode has put a strain on our working relationship, I want to reassure you that I have not changed in my attitude towards Wikiversity, and the mission we've always worked towards. I am simply trying here to maintain a culture of civility and mutual respect (even though I recognise that blocking is not a nice situation to create, or to be in). I still want to work with you on realising the vision we've always shared for Wikiversity, and to address the challenges that we face. I have no interest in power games - or any games such as we've seen recently, in fact - and I am not trying to restrict Wikiversity in any way, except to promote civility. I hope you can take this in good faith - it's very hard to have a constructive discussion when you maintain your negative characterisations of me and others, as you have been on my CU nomination, and in recent posts to your blog. However, I fully acknowledge that you feel negatively and unfairly characterised - so what I'm essentially doing here is calling for an 'amnesty', and a chance to have this discussion on a better footing than before. Cormaggio ^talk 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• The disruption, chaos, and turmoil that arose in the wake of two controversial and unjustified blocks has hurt a lot of people, as well as the project. We have seen such lamentable effects as stigmatization, shock, alienation and anomie, scapegoating, shattering of faith, and acedia. In some cases the level of distress has been so disturbing as to cause multiple bouts of projectile vomiting. We are not just talking about shpilkes in the gennektegessoink here. We are talking about toxic reactions sufficient to cause GERD.

• Using a block as a coercive tool is neither an acceptable practice nor a sustainable practice in an authentic learning community. Such practices amount to Bill of Attainder and Immurement and have no place in Wikiversity, full stop. I can think of no practice more incivil, uncollegial, unscholarly, unbecoming, or physiologically toxic as binding and gagging a fellow scholar.

Moulton 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"I do not believe that their concerns have been dealt with on the basis of your own claims about your activity and your intentions. I, personally, have certainly not been assuaged by your reaction to the highlighting of your activity" <-- If someone has "concerns" about my editing they should come to my talk page and tell me what is on their mind. Based upon your comments, I suspect that you continue to function as a "shoulder to cry on" for people who would like to kick me out of Wikiversity and probably also for any other complaint that someone has about my participation in Wikiversity. If you are preventing other editors from discussing their concerns with me, then you are disrupting Wikiversity and preventing people from sorting out their concerns. For some reason you remain unable to express to me what you personally find objectionable about my participation in Wikiversity. I find your refusal to discuss your concerns with me particularly distressing. Your vague statements about unhappy editors give me nothing to respond to. If you have a real concern, please tell me what it is. This is wiki communication 101: provide a link to the offensive edit and state in a short English sentence what you find objectionable. Rather than engage in that simple and direct process of communication you have instead engaged in a strange series of acts by which it has been made clear to the Wikiversity community that you are functioning as part of a team that includes members who want me to leave the project. It does no good for you to try to distance yourself from just the most absurdly objectionable behaviors of your team members. Your credibility is destroyed by lending your support to other custodians who have gone out of their way to invent false charges against me and try to use those false charges to "justify" blocking, banning and de-sysoping me. At the very least you have the obligation to respond to my demands that you either provide evidence to support your charges against me or retract them. If you continue to expect me to admit to the false charges you have made against me you will continue to be disappointed. "Your editing has caused hurt, offence and/or concern" <-- This has been the case since my first wiki edits many years ago. I was immediately accused of adding content to Wikipedia that was a copyright violation. Of course, the content that I added to Wikiversity was not a copyright violation since it was text that was written by me. In most cases, it has been a simple matter to talk to people and get them over their concerns about my editing. Over the years, in a few cases, I have had to deal with other editors who game the system and make a great show of being hurt by my editing when the fact is that all I am doing is advancing the mission of the wiki. In a few cases I have had to deal with other editors who are unable to understand my edits. So, when I am confronted with claims that my "editing has caused hurt, offence and/or concern" I must try to figure out if I just need to discuss my editing with someone, if the person taking offense is gaming the system or if the other editor is just confused about what is going on. In all cases, for me to figure out the problem I need to talk to the other editor. In cases where the other editor refuses to talk to me about their concerns it is almost always the case that the other editor is trying to game the system. It appears to me that you have been giving aid to editors who want to game the system and you have become their tool....they know that they can use you to game the system. It would be easy for you to extricate yourself from this unfortunate situation...I still hope that you will do so. "Your block was a temporary one" <-- I do not believe that. Had the decision been left to other members of your team I would never have been unblocked. Their "solution" to JWSchmidt is "get rid of him". This is particularly disturbing because all I have done is help create and develop Wikiversity as a center for online learning. What do these people want for Wikiversity if they want to get rid of me? It seems to me that they want the power to control the content of Wikiversity and the type of learning activities that Wikiversity participants can take part in. Rather than welcome everyone to come and pursue their individual learning goals, they want to set limits and otherwise impose censorship...and rather than reach decisions about Wikiversity content by discussion and consensus they feel free to abuse their tools and their power to get rid of someone who wants to keep Wikiversity open to all learners. "the disruption that your editing had caused" <-- I'd still like you to provide a list of the edits and for each edit a short English sentence that says what "disruption" I caused. I'm sure that deletionists find their deletionism to be "disrupted: when I prevent them from deleting someone's good faith contribution to Wikiversity. If I am studying how a Wikipedia editor violated Wikipedia policy, say, to create a biased biography article about a living person, then I am sure they find my editing "disruptive" to their attempt to avoid facing the consequences of violating Wikipedia policy. If someone claims, without providing any evidence, that a wiki editor is "outing" another wiki editor, then I suppose I am disrupting their attempt to convict someone of "outing" without having to provide any evidence of "outing". I do not worry too much about causing these kinds of disruption. If there is some other type of disruption that you are concerned about then I would like to hear about it some time. "It was not solely based on your inviting Moulton to work on research guidelines" <-- I never said that it was, but as I read this you pointed to the false and distorted charges that were in the "review" and the only explicitly stated reason was the idea that I had done wrong by inviting Moulton to work on the research guidelines. It is perfectly reasonable for me to frequently mention the false charge that I encouraged Moulton to transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org. What I did was openly discussed in #wikiversity-en before I did it and it was nothing more than a good faith attempt to start working on changes to the research policy that had been suggested by Jimbo. There was never a valid reason to block me, ban me from #wikiversity-en or remove my custodianship. "the related 'false charges' you've been explicitly mentioning represent a relatively very small part of my personal concerns" <-- maybe some day you can explain to me what your real concerns are...so far all I have been provided with by way of "explanation" is a bunch of smoke and noise...its like a scene from the Wizard of Oz. The smoke and noise do not scare me. "I'm not sure if the block was clearly enough communicated to you" <-- I do not agree. I think it was communicated as effectively as was possible. The problem was that there was no valid reason for the block. Various excuses have been made, but they are all just lame excuses. The community saw through the charade and that is why I was unblocked. "I am not trying to restrict Wikiversity in any way, except to promote civility" <-- If so, then hope you can carefully examine the civility of your team members and those who voted to keep me blocked from editing. One has called me "troll", one called me "whiner" and one wants me to fuck off and leave the project. I'm still working my way through all the charges that have been made against me...I wonder what other pleasures await me there. It is truly a sickening process to read and respond to the abuse that has been heaped upon me. There are a thousand constructive things I would rather be doing, but the bogus charges made against be are still choking me. I never expected Wikiversity to be a toxic playground swarming with bullies who feel free to abuse their positions of trust. I had hopes that by this point the work of setting up a new wiki would be mostly complete and we could concentrate on having fun collaborating with like-minded scholars on our learning goals. I fear it will take several additional years to repair the damage that has been done by these bullies. "Wikipedia disease" might not be comprehensive enough to describe this mess....I guess I should just admit that we have our very own "Wikiversity disease"....I think Wikiversity has managed to sink even lower than Wikipedia. "it's very hard to have a constructive discussion when you maintain your negative characterisations of me and others" <-- I'm not sure what you can otherwise realistically expect. Yes, I have seen some crime victims beg the judge to take mercy on the criminal, but my priority is the future of Wikiversity. I see no future for Wikiversity of I just cave in to the thugs that want to rule Wikiversity and turn Wikiversity into some abomination full of restrictions and censorship. I've always known that we would have to self-censor Wikiversity content, but I did not expect that we would have to deal with people like McCormack and "Centaur of Attention" who want to impose restrictions on Wikiversity that are not in the best interest of the Wikimedia Foundation. "calling for an 'amnesty', and a chance to have this discussion on a better footing than before" <-- I'm always open to discussion as the path to solving the problems of Wikiversity. I fear that the thugs have driven away and intimidated many of the honest Wikiversity participants. It seems like there is still a lot of pain ahead since the thugs are still free to strut around abusing their power. Right now they are attracting more thugs while the honest participants hide and cower. The whole charade is truly sickening. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John, I've given you plenty of explicit examples on this page of what I've been disturbed by - and many of these are also in the review. Sure - maybe I still need to communicate this in more detail with you - but I have not "refused", and I would appreciate if you could simply stop this categorically false statement. I'd also appreciate if you could stop characterising people as "thugs" - in fact, I would urge you to tone down your language and hostility in general. (I ask this not in order to stop you using particular words and phrases - but because your use of particular words and phrases is wholly unfair - and you have clearly pushed several people well past their personal thresholds.) If you do tone down your hostility, it will make this conversation a lot easier for both of us - and for everyone who is trying to follow what's going on. So, after a break and a think, I honestly believe that the basic problem here is that you have been seriously misguided in your characterisation of McCormack's intentions. McCormack has done a huge amount of work on Wikiversity's structure, and working methods - and has tried to make Wikiversity more intuitive, accessible, and better organised. I think your characterisation of McCormack's 'deletionism' is overly harsh - and your characterisation of his edits around the Student union as trying to undermine student participation is grossly unfair. McCormack has always wanted to have a clear process (or many processes, in fact) by which people can participate - and I honestly believe that, after two years, this is still not clear enough, and is therefore potentially off-putting to many potential contributors and learners. McCormack's efforts to document what kinds of materials we have, and could have - are good steps towards our mission of figuring out what works and what doesn't work in a wiki environment. Yes, I know the two of you rubbed each other up the wrong way at times (his calling you a "troll" - if he indeed did say that - was not in a vacuum, I'm sure) - but if you took what he said in response to your critiques here and elsewhere in good faith, then I think you would be building on his work, not attacking it. I think the two main discussions we need to have right now are around learning (and how it works), and around deletion (and how/when it is justified) - in other words, what exactly we are trying to promote in Wikiversity. I don't think we have ever been explicit about this - except about our diversity - and so I'm surprised that you think this issue of our identity should be somehow behind us. I think a lot of the energy you've put in recently which a lot of people feel is problematic would be best directed towards these discussions - and in an appropriate space, ie a policy discussion page. I absolutely don't think that there is an effort to limit Wikiversity - except for to define what kinds of materials, processes, and policies best serve a wiki-based learning project. It's in the best interests of Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation to do so - and you know this. But it's against these interests to act as divisively as you have been before, during, and after the block - all anyone wants to do here is to make Wikiversity a better place - and I know you do too. Cormaggio ^talk 19:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity: scope (versus?) organisation

John,

I have seen McCormack's work. I believe he has been trying to make wikiversity more accessable and useful to more people. He wanted to put more structure on the content so that the resources are more accessible (and so that you don't need to shoot randomly). In so doing he had deviated from the original concepts of the topic: and school: namespaces; and we also had a little discussion on that. However, this had been happening all along; McCormack was not the only one who think of "school:" differently from its original idea as a free community space. And a casual newcomer may be confused by the existence of both "topic:" and "school:", whose descriptions are very similar. In an ideal world we need not distinguish "primary, secondary or tertiary" education; and even in our world someone with limited knowledge in maths may know history or literature deeply. However, wikiversity is created by real world people who come here, for better or for worse, with all of our real world baggage. And I cannot see how McCormack's contributions adversely affect free participation in Wikiversity - could you point it out? Overall, I would say McCormack's contribution is positive. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: fiction

Hi, John! Thanks for posting to my talk page. I am relatively new to Wikiversity and basically just beginning to feel my way around things, so if my posts are a bit messy, I hope you aren't too bothered by it.

I really haven't found a particular genre to focus my writing on yet; I really like SF (I'm a huge Star Wars fan!) and I have several interesting ideas for stories inspired by the likes of "Terminator" and "Alien"--although I'm not too sure if my writing style fits well in that genre since (among other things) I struggle with pinning down specific details, which I know is the key to making SF plausible and believable. That said, I'm not much of a fan of hard SF per se...I believe the most enjoyable SF is the stuff where you have to suspend your disbelief a bit, as in the Star Wars series: not everything has to be explained scientifically. On the opposite end of the spectrum, pure fantasy worlds (Middle Earth, Pern, Narnia, etc.) are a little too "out there" for my tastes.

As far as my SF goes I think I take after Allan Dean Foster quite a bit; I also like Asimov, but I could never be as technical as him. I've never read Philip K. Dick, but I've loved every film adaptation of his stories thusfar and would be interested to check out their literary counterparts!

The handful of complete stories I've written (no SF among them so far) tend to be melodramatic and character-driven pieces focusing on the "hero" or "heroine" coming to a new understanding of him- or herself after acknowledging and working through the pyschological effects his or her tumultuous past. In this area I'm heavily influenced by writers like King, Koontz, and Grisham.

I apoologize if this message is too lengthy...I hope I've sufficiently answered your question. KirbyPuckettFan 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey John, please take a look at the meta page for my SF novella and tell me what you think. I'd like to do a collab with you and David on this. KirbyPuckettFan 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...although my idea is not so much about mutating humans as it is about the necessity of the Luminads finding a way to boost their immune systems so that they can extend their life expectancy on Osiris IV. BUT...it's a logical scenerio to begin setting up at the end of the first book (I envision a trilogy or maybe even a tetrolgy for this) since the humans will be laying the groundwork for COHABITATION among the (reverse-engineered) Luminads. Initially, I thought that the main enemies in the sequel novels could be Saurok-earth cat hybrids, i.e. the last surviving Saurok somehow "mates" with a lion, tiger, or leopard (a transplanted zoo animal) and the resulting DNA mix creates an even more predatory Saurok species. Extending the DNA mutation to humans would fit the desired progression of adversaries in the series... KirbyPuckettFan 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

check this out KirbyPuckettFan 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Transmission Break in comment...

The reason I asked is to do the US Elections, If Obama wins there will be a media frenzy, and Wikinews is already talking about possibly making a 'call' http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#Calling_the_2008_US_election

I've started building a rough playlist, but if Obama is obviously going to win, then it might be prudent to 'break into' the transmission to make a suitable announcment, I will come up with some wording...

Following the Break in, the idea was to play the US National Anthem, and then go direct to Wikinews, the alterntive is to go via two speechs, I've outlined in the Active Stream's disscusion page...

This of course only happens if there if there is an Obama win, a McCain win would not be a transmission breaking event. ShakespeareFan00 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world not? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK - There is a provisonal playlist idea here Talk:Wiki_Campus_Radio/Active_audio_stream#US_elections, Unfrotuantly I don't have any suggestions on what to use in respect of McCain Victory, or music wise. If you are US based you may have more ideas.. Apologies for the short notice ShakespeareFan00 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal and professional

I read your statement, and I noticed you stated this: ""the disruption that your editing had caused" <-- I'd still like you to provide a list of the edits and for each edit a short English sentence that says what "disruption" I caused." Your concern is not unique about this, as I would also like to see more clarity on a per edit basis for how disruption is caused, or how someone can claim it as disruption. On the wiki environment, such accusation have been vaguely placed on other users without any kind of list of reasons, or, simply put, the accusation is too easily said too often. On Wikipedia, there are claims that even mere accusation of 'disruption' against a user is understood as an attempt to block that user, but I won't bring those instances up here right now. However, UninvitedCompany left a statement that may interest you: [10], which shows the concerns at a different level. I don't know much of the history about how UC's concern grew. Dzonatas 18:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Disruption" is often used to mean "You are making me upset therefore you are disrupting my peace of mind and ability to edit here productively. Please stop editing in a way that bothers me." But the person is being told this in a way that upsets them, so one "side" is asserting the right to upset the other while claiming the other "side" has no right to upset them. WAS 4.250 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think it was the level of indirection (comments about comments about a study about comments about comments) that confused and upset people followed by JWSchmidt not recognising that he was upsetting people. WAS 4.250 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The level of recognition needs to be a two way street. One thing to recognize about JWS's actions is that JWS did not block people simply based on what upset JWS. JWS didn't block McCormick, for instance in this case. When the level of indirection lead to an obvious break down in communication between the two, then McCormick posted the colloquium thread about disruption, which lead to JWS being blocked. I saw two problems here. One being the parody, by JWS, being found in the level of indirection. The other being the post of the 'disruptive' threads in the colloquium, which I found to be a more publicly advertised link than the Student Union page. The Colloquium has a link in the left tool bar on every page of this website. The Student Union page I found only by the edit-war activity in recent changes. In the manner in which McCormick posted the thread is practically in equal parody of JWS's attempt to discuss situations on the Student Union page. Two wrongs don't make a right. JWS states on my page, "to turn Wikiversity into a mirror of Wikipedia, make it yet another wiki where reasoned arguments are not offered." I can understand this concern because a few admins here decided to overlook the wrong of what McCormick did and only focus on what JWS did, which can be viewed by others, like me, as not fair. I think Uninvited Company's #7 statement reflects this kind concern where actions are unfairly overlooked while another is exploited: "to turn Wikiversity into a mirror of Wikipedia, make it yet another wiki where reasoned arguments are not offered." Wikipedia has been based upon a popular view rather than truth. If the popular view is unable to look at a situation fairly, then I feel such view doesn't qualify under scholarly ethics. If Wikiversity is to become based on scholarly ethics, it has to be recognize different from Wikipedia where truth matters more than the popular view. Dzonatas 19:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and there you go again!

Sat down to look at the recent changes, and saw your baitish edit comment (case 21: why has User:SB Johnny blocked the development of critical Wikiversity policies?). For one thing, you know darn well that my issue with you on that was that you just went through and "officialized" a bunch of policies without so much as a note on the colloquium that you had done so, and that that particular policy was a bit scary because "wannabe hawk" Wikipedian transplants might use that to "prove their mettle" by nominating any/all research projects because the wording of that policy wasn't well thought out.

You've also clearly not gotten the message that insulting people via edit comment is a vulgar and less-than-collegial way to behave. Bummer. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"baitish edit comment" <-- My edit summary contained an honest question about your editing, not an attempt to bait you. "'officialized' a bunch of policies without so much as a note on the colloquium that you had done so" <-- we have Wikiversity:Be bold. As you demonstrated, it is a trivial matter to 'un-officialize' a policy. I spent months recruiting collaborators to develop Wikiversity policy that was explicitly requested by the Wikimedia Foundation. The community had many discussions and then it was time to try to put some kind of cap on that process of policy development. It is true that I have been in a position to make many contributions to the structure of Wikiversity, but I will defend myself against the twisted claim that my hard work for the Wikiversity project and community is "manipulation". "the wording of that policy wasn't well thought out" <-- no doubt, but if there is a problem with a wiki page the solution is to correct the problem by editing. "nominating any/all research projects" <-- I do not really see that as a realistic danger. I think Cormaggio's formula was correct: "it would not be productive to apply this policy miltantly, but within 'common sense," and applies to research. The obligation to cite appropriate sources is a foundation for good research, not a tool for eliminating wiki pages that involve research results. "insulting people via edit comment" <-- are you claiming that I insulted someone? Please list the edit and explain in a short English sentence what the insult was. "less-than-collegial way to behave. Bummer." <-- I find it very strange to be the recipient of your commentary on collegiality. You published a pile of false and twisted charges against me, used those false and twisted charges to try to "justify" imposing an indef block on my editing and having my custodianship terminated and I still do not know why you have banned me from #wikiversity-en without discussion, warning or a reason given. You brought a "mediator" to Wikiversity who promptly went around telling long-term Wikiversity participants to leave the project, and you have also suggested that I leave the project....in the most vulgar of ways. I'm truly intrigued by the world you inhabit where you think you can do anything you like, things nobody else can do, "because you are you", while at the same time you take offense if I question your behavior.....yes, you clearly know the collegial way to behave....I have so much to learn from you. --JWSchmidt 18:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you had a question about my editing, you could have just asked my on my talk page (since you're so fond of telling others that they should do so with you). Being bold doesn't mean being sneaky... you waited until the discussion was long dormant, and then officialized them because you thought they were right. Policies are decided by the community, not by you, and if you really felt it was urgent to enact them, you could have just asked around for new opinions (I, for example, would have supported most of them, had you only made the effort to ask rather than tell). I do appreciate that you were just trying to fulfill the mandates/requests of the foundation, but wiki communities (like wiki content) need to be free to evolve, and your insistence on engaging in character assassination on anyone not following your mission (even if that mission really is the original mission) is at best counterproductive, at worst destructive.

I think you should bear in mind that your use of edit comments in that manner is what drew me personally into it (with the "McCormack doesn't like students..." thing): I've always made it a point to leave the endless arguments about policies to people who enjoy that sort of thing (I don't, as you know), and wait to add my $0.02 when it gets announced somewhere (colloquium, sitenotice, whatever). In most cases the end result of the endless back and forth (again, not my cuppa) tends to be a good sense of the community's desire and intent. The problem with you is that rather than just voting "Keep" when you disagree with a proposal for deletion (etc.), you start accusing people of being against the spirit of Wikiversity, the community, and so forth. There's no ulterior motives here John: we didn't write that review to set you up for a fall. We wrote it and/or signed onto it because we were honestly concerned about the way you were treating people, and we didn't feel we could construct it all "on-wiki" (it actually was on a wiki, just not this one) because you tend to glom onto one point or another and use it to attack, rather than just trying to understand the other's point of view (or at least that's how it feels).

I'll try to answer the rest tomorrow... plum tuckered now. One bit of unsolicited advice though: it would help your "case" a lot if you would try to take other people's concerns seriously rather than assigning nefarious motivations to their concerns. The hardest time to Assume Good Faith is when people are really angry at you. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a few more comments. Railing on about how people made "false and twisted charges to justify a block" isn't helping things. First, it implies that we are twisted people (we're not), that we have some sort of hidden motivation for blocking you other than the problems we outlined in the review (we don't), and that we intended to keep you permanently blocked (we didn't). The block was to head off further disruptive behavior on your part after the tools were removed, and the fact that you've spend most of your energies since the block was removed continuing your campaign of character assassination only proves that we did indeed have reason to be concerned. The logs I've seen from -projects also makes it pretty clear that banning you from -en was also a good idea, since you've been just as aggressive there as you were on -en before the ban was put in place.

I assume by "mediator" you mean Jayvdb, but I'm ot sure what you're saying about him.

And as far as "what I can get away with", I believe that discussion was in relation to when I tried to serve as a "firewall" during the early days of the Ethics project, because enough people knew who I am that they would be willing to AGF on my part and let things progress for a while rather than denouncing and disrupting the project from the get-go ("Centaur of Attention", for example, arrived on the project within hours of the content contributors). I still think that was the right thing to do, and I don't think Moulton, WAS, et. al. would have had a moment's peace to get their content in order if I hadn't made an all-out effort to give them that space. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"If you had a question about my editing" <-- I'm guessing that this is in reference to my edit summary. I was editing a page in an attempt to respond to one of the charges you made against me (accusing me of "policy manipulation") and I was making a suggestion to Wikiversity community: that my contributions to policy development be compared to yours. My edit summary was designed to convey they content of my edit. "if you really felt it was urgent to enact them" <-- I do very few things in the wiki world out of a sense of urgency. When I have time, I contribute what I think will help the wiki communities I participate in. I admit that I sometimes do things that I know will not be welcomed by everyone, and other times I am taken by surprise when people are upset by my editing. I invite people to come to my talk page and tell me when they think I have "crossed the line". "your insistence on engaging in character assassination on anyone not following your mission" <-- Please list the specific case of "character assassination" you are insinuating. Sometimes I describe the actions of others, but if my act of describing someone's actions causes distress, then it only tells us something about their actions. I stand behind my accounts of the behavior of other editors. You have made many false charges against me and as I respond to your charges I have been asking that those charges be retracted or supported by evidence. So far there has only been silence and continued pointing to your false and distorted charges as "justification" for blocking me and having my custodianship removed. Your behavior might be viewed by some as....gee, what is a good term to describe this....character assassination? "you start accusing people of being against the spirit of Wikiversity, the community, and so forth" <-- the Wikiversity community developed a culture that welcomes new editors. When I see a few people rejecting the Wikiversity approach and trying to bring in a toxic culture of treating good faith contributions like vandalism then I am not going to just quietly "vote keep". Similarly, I view your treatment of me as totally inappropriate for any wiki community and particularly offensive to the reason-honoring learning environment that so many have tried to develop here at Wikiversity. You are free to retain fantasies about being able to intimidate me and you can dream that I will follow your advice to, "just go fuck yourself and go away," but I'm not going anywhere. "we were honestly concerned about the way you were treating people" <-- You were concerned that I stood up to people who were calling the good faith contributions of new wiki editors "garbage"? You were concerned that I stood up to someone who came to Wikiversity on the self-proclaimed mission of getting another Wikiversity participant banned? You were concerned that I stood up to someone who wanted to remove Wikiversity's invitation to students that they feel welcome to edit and participate? I will always defend the right of students to come to Wikiversity and participate. When I stood up to McCormack he called me a troll and told me that he would never talk to me again. Now you want to punish me for how I defended Wikiversity against McCormack. Fine. Your position is clear. It is your style to label people as "troll" and tell them to fuck off. I oppose the style of wiki "leadership" you have adopted. "we didn't feel we could construct it all 'on-wiki'" <-- when you make the choice to work on Wikiversity issues off of Wikiversity you have to live with the consequences. For example, I hold you fully responsible for every false and distorted charge that was in the "review" that you signed your name to. "take other people's concerns seriously" <-- I am happy to do so, particularly when they come to my talk page an say, "This edit (dif:here), it concerns me because X," and then we can discuss the situation. If we are talking about this, I admit I'm still working my way through all the "cases", but so far I have not found a single charge against me that is other than false and/or distorted. I do not view the "review" as having expressed "people's concerns" in a coherent manner. I view the "review" only as what it has been used for: a way to publish many false and distorted charges against me that could be used as an excuse to block me from editing, to ban me from #wikiversity-en and to have my custodianship removed. If the review had been intended to be a way to "express people's concerns" then I would have been allowed to respond and the community would have then had a chance to read the charges and my responses and decide on how to respond to the "concerns". That did not happen. First, McCormack tried to prevent me from responding to his false and distorted charges. I suspect he knew all along that he could not defend his false and distorted charges in a fair community discussion. So I had to be blocked from editing before I could defend myself against all his charges. The honest Wikiversity participants could see that there was no basis for the bad block you imposed on me. Yes, you had intimidated most people, but in the end, honest people gather their courage and do what needs to be done to set things right. "assigning nefarious motivations to their concerns" <-- I suppose this is yet another insinuated charge against me. Please explicitly state any where you think I have been "assigning nefarious motivations". After you published all those false and distorted charges against me I defended myself and I have described the actions of people who have made false and distorted charges against me and who have called me 'troll' and 'whiner' and told me to "just go fuck yourself". Sometimes I do speculate and hypothesize about the motivations of others, but when I do that I'm always still waiting for them to explain their own actions. "it implies that we are twisted people" <-- not really, but since some of you worry that I mean "twisted" in that way I'm willing to say 'distorted' and not 'twisted'.....but since you mention this possibility, I guess it could be that there was just one "twisted person" and three clueless people who agreed to sign what was written by the one "twisted person". There are other possibilities, too, but I do agree that when such a collection of false and distorted charges is used as a basis for abuse of power then all sorts of possibilities are likely rush to people's minds. That is the danger you take on when you work in secret to ambush a fellow wiki editor, in this case, a fellow editor who begged you to discuss your concerns about my editing in a civilized manner. I'd prefer to use "twisted person" to refer to people who think it is funny to put pictures of penises on the main page. "that we have some sort of hidden motivation for blocking you other than the problems we outlined in the review (we don't)" <-- fine, then call me clueless because I still do not see a single valid reason in the review for blocking me from editing, you certainly never provided one either when you blocked me or when you refused to unblock me. When you banned me from #wikiversity-en there was no discussion, no warning and no reason given for the channel ban. I still do not understand why you banned me and why you continue to enforce the ban. You and your team published a bunch of false and distorted charges against me and used them as an excuse to bring in an uninformed outsider to remove my custodianship, with no community consensus for it. That is the kind of action that wikis reserve for sysops who start deleting the main page or something. To use that trick on me is an abuse of your position, power and responsibility. But since I am so clueless, maybe you can help clue me in. It is really simple: you say something like, "JWSchmidt was blocked from editing because he kept putting penis images on the main page" or "JWSchmidt was banned from #wikiversity-en because he called other people 'troll' and told them to 'just go fuck yourself'" or "JWschmidt had to have his custodianship removed because he abused his tools by imposing an indef block on a fellow editor without warning, discussion or a valid reason." If you provide me with a short and clear English sentence such as those then I think I will be able to start to understand you "concerns". "the fact that you've spend most of your energies since the block was removed continuing your campaign of character assassination" <-- eh? "fact"? I dispute your "fact". Please describe this "campaign of character assassination". I've exerted most of my energies trying to keep working through and responding to all the false and distorted charges that you published against me.....it is truly a sickening exercise to perform in what I had dreamed of as a place of reason and learning. It is such a joy to come to this "center of learning" and read the advice of a "community leader": "just go fuck yourself" and then have to suffer through advice from the "community leader" about how to be collegial. Yes, the joy of learning...please keep it coming. I am in your debt for you sharing all these "tricks of the trade" and "nuggets of wisdom" with me. "you've been just as aggressive there as you were on -en" <-- does this mean you banned me for "being aggressive"? Please do be specific. What have I been aggressive about? Defending Wikiversity from people who threaten to have it shut down? Defending myself from people who call me 'troll'? Defending myself and my fellow collaborators in research and learning against absurd assertions and accusations? Please tell me in detail about your "concerns".....or do you intend to just let this be another charge that you make and use to "justify" your actions but never discuss and never support with evidence and never allow me to defend myself against? "you mean Jayvdb, but I'm ot sure what you're saying about him" <-- Let's try doing some research on this topic...maybe I did not correctly understand things that he said. As a starting point, you can provide your definition of "moderator" and explain to the community what you asked jayvdb to do at Wikiversity as a "moderator" and you can provide your assessment of how he performed that task. We can ask jayvdb how many Wikiversity participants he told to leave the project and then we will check his answer against the evidence. "what I can get away with" <-- I'll grant you the right to say what you meant when you said it. It took on a whole new meaning for me when you decided to block, ban and desysop me. Since about that time, you have seemed free to make any charge you like against me. Even when I explain that a charge you have made against me is false you and Cormaggio do not seem to care....you even seem to keep insisting that I admit that your false charges are correct. As far as I'm concerned, even a person who feels free to use the ban hammer on whim does not get a free ride for making false charges and using them as a way to "justify" misuse of power. --JWSchmidt 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your edit comment was the accusation that I'm against making good policies (I'm not), when you know quite well that my gripe with it was that you unilaterally declared a bunch of policies to be official, without discussion or notifying the community. When I reverted that on one of the policies (which was quite appropriate), you told me to get a clue. The manipulation comes to play because you waited until people weren't really engaged in the discussion any more, and then officialized them without giving any notice that you had done so or asking for community input, and then you copped an attitude when I called you on it. The "argue to the last and then have your way when everyone gets tired of arguing with you" approach to community decision making is a rather poor model. Likewise, putting the most negative interpretation possible on someone's acts or words is not a constructive way to reach consensus (though Karl Rove would probably see it your way here). --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"the accusation that I'm against making good policies" =?= "why has User:SB Johnny blocked the development of critical Wikiversity policies?" I never said that you are against making good policies. My position is this: it is in the best interest of the project that there be official policies about citing sources and privacy. Rather than help meet these needs, you have resisted the development of these policies. When #wikiversity-en participants were bothered by the mention of real names of wiki editors I worked to develop Wikiversity:Privacy policy to address that problem and I repeatedly asked participants in #wikiversity-en to make it official policy and to apply that policy to #wikiversity-en. I think it would be constructive for Wikiversity participants to explore the question of who has and who has not worked to meet this kind of critical policy need. This is important context for your charge that I "manipulate policy". I find it truly sickening that you would try to portray my efforts to develop Wikiversity policy as "manipulation". I worked to get approval for research at Wikiversity, then I struggled to get collaborators who would devote time to develop the research policy, I participated in community discussions and ask for input, including arranging for people to help translate discussions, I waited until no further input arrived and then acted to cap the development process and mark the research policy (and some other important policies) as official. It is a wiki. Everything is reversible. Any policy, even one marked "official" is still open for debate, modification and change. You would have done things different. Fine. If you do not like the way I do something then suggest a better way to do it. I think it is despicable to wait until long after you think I should have made an announcement on the colloquium and then try to claim that I "manipulate policy" as part of a collection of false and distorted charges. Then while I was still in the process of responding to all your false and distorted charges you blocked, banned and desysoped me. It is a sick double standard for you to complain that I failed to make an announcement on the colloquium while you are free to do anything you want to do including sharing your advice to, "just go fuck yourself and go away," blocking me without a valid reason for a block, banning me from #wikiversity-en with no discussion, warning or reason and using a collection of false and distorted charges to "justify" having my custodianship removed. You endlessly continue to make claims such as saying that I accused you of being against the making of good policies. Is this the future of Wikiversity, you endlessly making false and distorted charges against someone who you have a disagreement with? Is this fun for you? "you copped an attitude when I called you on it" <-- When judging consensus in a wiki I heavily discount votes that are cast without discussion and without provided reasons. I favor the idea that voting is a last resort that should only be entered into after discussion. Further, I think custodians should understand the importance of discussion and reasoned argument. I'm astounded anytime I see a wiki sysop rushing to vote or confirm a vote and count votes that are cast without there first being discussion. So, ya, I have an "attitude" about that. "argue to the last and then have your way when everyone gets tired of arguing with you" <-- I'm usually satisfied when people give me a chance to respond to their arguments and they respond to mine. Then I know there has been a chance for some discussion and communication. "putting the most negative interpretation possible on someone's acts or words is not a constructive way to reach consensus" <-- I agree. I think the correct approach is to describe someone's actions and ask them to explain their motivations. However, if people start saying "You are a troll so I'm not going to talk to you" or "I want a pony" or "If I have to explain that then there is nothing I can say to you" then I feel the flood gates have opened and I am free to start formulating hypotheses about what motivates such people. I find that after I make a few silly suggestions then normal people chuckle and explain their own motivations....if nothing else just to stop me from making more foolish suggestions about their possible motivations. When people's actions are questioned and they never explain their actions and motivations then it gets very strange. For example, you told the community that I needed to be blocked from editing here because I encouraged Moulton to "transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org". I've asked what "transfer his 'work'" means. Silence. Whatever it means, it is so serious that I had to be blocked. But what is the truth? What did I actually do? I had an open discussion in #wikiversity-en with Moulton about how to modify the research policy in response to Jimbo's suggestions. I asked Moulton to look at the research policy and help modify it. So my effort to take Jimbo's advice and modify the research policy becomes a blockable offense. This raises many questions about the motivations of the team of sysops who made this false charge against me and used it to justify an indef block of my editing. An honorable person would withdraw such a false charge and take action to correct the damage they have done. What should be said about the four sysops who refuse to discuss this false charge they made and who refuse to retract it? "the most negative interpretation possible" <-- I've not offered the most negative interpretations possible for the horrible things that have taken place at Wikiversity. I generally limit myself to describing what has happened and I'm happy to stand behind my descriptions of events. If you think I have given "the most negative interpretation possible" for events at Wikiversity then set me straight. I'd really like to know why you have made and continue to make so many false and distorted charges against me. Why is it that even after I show that a charge is false you refuse to retract the charge? "the most negative interpretation possible" <-- please list these "most negative interpretations" and provide the "correct interpretation" (as you see it), then we can discuss the evidence and see which interpretation best matches the evidence. --JWSchmidt 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. I'm going to just share a very general thought here and we can hopefully have a non-hyperbolic discussion another day. John, if people are going to contribute here, it will be because they feel that their contributions will be valued... I think we agree on that. However, people need to feel that they have a stake in things, and that Wikiversity is something that will evolve, and that they can help it evolve. Your behavior (both before and after the tool removal/block/irc ban), your voluminous rhetorical speeches, and your "anything goes" debate style has been read by many (including, only lately, me) to believe that you see yourself as the oracle and herald of what Wikiversity's mission is, was, and always shall be, and that anyone who sees things differently is an enemy of Wikiversity.

I don't think anyone really believes you any more (your writings of late make it pretty clear that you're a bit off the deep end), so maybe you might consider getting off the high horse (it's dead, and I'm tired of beating it). I'm fairly sure that most Wikiversitans really don't want a messiah, John... we want to meet as equals. What happened to you wasn't due to a conspiracy of power-hungry people, but rather due to an ad hoc gang of peers who decided that the bully needed to leave the playground.

I'm not going to make any more lists for you John... been there, done that, and you've made it clear that nothing sunk in. I really wish you would make an effort to try to understand why people got so upset. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews Briefs

Hello, ShakespeareFan00 asked me to update you about the Audio Wikinews Briefs. I will be resuming these on Monday, I had to step away from the project for a few weeks. Kamnet 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Custodian nomination

Thanks for the reminder - time's up - it had slipped from my gaze. Feel free to comment, but will nominate now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Could you try to limit the sizes of some of your entries? When you go over a certain length, it makes it harder for people to keep up with what you are saying, and gives others the impression that you don't necessarily want to discuss, but just be heard. I don't say this to hurt you or anything. Quite the opposite. People will just be willing to interact with you in a better way if you kept your responses to, say, 10 sentences? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

JWS, you can blame it on ruling parties or the rest, but its an old idea that dates back thousands of years. Right now, its called tl:dr, i.e. "too long, didn't read". Its the basics of rhetoric. Try to be succinct and it will help your audience follow your point. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't rule. I don't spend that much time in the chat. I watch recent changes. I see what goes on. I help with various requests, and I go to the chat if there is an issue that needs immediate attention. I wish you would stop stereotyping or lumping people together. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Question for Mike.Lifeguard

your last post of questions for mike dissapeared shortly before I was going to respond to them. I was going to say this to you.

These allegations confuse me. consider JW that you have accused Mike of calling someone a whiner, a troll, and worse yet "go fuck yourself and go away".

I presume that you are objectively quoting Mike. Since it seems greatly out of character for mike. I would like to know the full story of this. Rather than merely heatedly asking mike a bunch of heated questions, woudld you attach specific and referenced allegations.

I don't fully undestand these very heated and repetitous accusations of incivility. There are , after all, places to mention it. In fact, one ethics project specifically asks for instances of incivility. I was hoping that as a community we could discuss and undestand what has you and some other participants so upset. It is been inactive for many weeks. So if all these unacceptable exchanges are occuring, why not record it in this project, for all to see. (and also, if you are specifically and clearly recording incivil acts somewhere, with the purpose to talk about it as a community; I would like to know where it is.)

I though real hard about replying. I don't really want to by in the middle of anybodies feud. But the quoted accusations seem so extreme that I wonder how it is that you and I have had such different experiences with Mike. Despite all the allegations on this page, I have had NO incivil exchange with anyone on wikiversity. Mike, commagio, and Jade (to name just three people that have been recently nominated) have been particularly helpful, pleasant, and welcoming.

At anyrate JW; if you have allegations, please make it clearer what and where Mike has done/said these things. Is it possible you have taken things out of context? I think that Mike has done some work to undo vandalism in the site, and sometimes deletions are needed to create order. --Jolie 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

well, I'll give you credit for the worst sounding one, go f yourself. you transparently state how said and when. but this Isn't Mike.lifeguard's words. I am pleased to see some a conciliatory tone on the top of the page; I don't want to have any issues with you. I'm just very confused the allegations with people that have been very civil and welcoming to me.--Jolie 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand things around here very much, JW. I have had nothing but the most civil exchanges between most active wv participants. Let me present you an allegory,

in a way coming to wikiversity has been like coming to a beautiful, majestic catholic church. The service is thoughtful, and inspirational. The priest is kindly, very friendly, helpful. In a few hours, I have more spiritual thoughts than I have in many months. I talk to the choir director, and a lay minister. all inspirational and wonderful. the choir director tells me how inspiring the priest is and how much of a difference the priest has made. The music is exquisite, the entire congregation is friendly, welcoming and helpful (although small). as I'm walking to go home, a quiet reserved man beckons me. He is pleasant looking, thoughtful but Sad. He lowers his voice. "Do not be TOO inspired, he whispers, I have know the priest for many years", he begins, "My brother was a alter boy; the priest abused him and ruined his life"; The man continues his allegations "The priest is wealthy and has been stealing money from the church for many years. And it isn't only the priest, the choir director is a violent man who abused his wife and has said horrible things to people. They say we want to grow", he sarcastically smiles, "NO, they haven't a spark of kindness in them. they are friendly to a man to a new face and eager to impress. But this is a vicious awful place." The old man concludes "I am a student of god, young sir, And I shall stay, in hopes to hear something helpful in this rocky hell. So do not be inspired."

so if you follow my allegory, I have had nothing but inspirational experience here in wv, for nearly two months but your allegations are trouble-some and confusing. Your allegations almost suggest there is no hope in redemption. It confuses me with the concilitory things that they have said. Would you suggest that are neither being honest nor sincere in their effort to improve wv civiity? I highly suspect you would. then I probably return to my request; detail the allegation. if there aren't sincere or strait, why ask?--Jolie 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your civil discussion on my talk page. Good, I have no problems with you John. There are places where alot of these issues are discussed; your log for example. I admit around lunch the whole exchange was bothering me... But, I've been very nicely treated here and have no complaints. I think I have been spending too much time today, looking into other people arguments; instead of doing what I came to do here. Study, collaborate, and pursue knowledge of interesting subjects.

Recognizing that you are one of the founders of wikiversity. Thank you for your insight,dedication and vision. I really enjoy this website. I'm not an academic and have been out of college a long time, but since coming here I feel as if I'm learning and growing. I suppose that to a point, I need to pleasant to everyone and let people settle their differences (although I continue to hope that in some small way I can write something in these kinds of community conversations that will inspire people to be more civil).

I look forward to working with you in helping wikiversity grow. --Jolie 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RNA interference

I have been reading your article here on RNAi and the wikipedia one. I understand the majority of the process but I am a little confused about the effector protein. Here is what I understand to be the steps in exogenous dsRNA-induced RNAi:

1. Initiation Step: Exogenous dsRNA induces dicer to cleave it into double-stranded siRNA 2. Effector Step: double-stranded siRNA is incorporated into RISC and is converted to single-stranded dsRNA by argonaute

Does the effector protein bind the dsRNA and present it to dicer or does it present the siRNA to RISC (or both)? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 19:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I studied four years medicine and I transfered it to biochemistry. I am 7 weeks into the course. The wording of the wikipedia article confuses me a lot, especially the section I am talking about. Have a read at the (3) dsRNA paragraphs. The second paragraph seems to go back to the start of the process and then describe the middle of the process. I looked at the history to see who edited it but there are a lot of contributions from anonymous users. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 15:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming

• Sorry for the delay. Be sure I'll ask any help I'll need. I wrote a short user page, so you can learh some basics about me.
• I started writing/editings in greek language WP, in January 2008. I started about 30 articles there, and I reached about 2,500 editings.
• In September 2008 I also started additions to gteek language WV. I started some subjects that was missing, like Msthematics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology and History.
• I visit the english ones too, but usually to take ideas and data. Rsrely, I find sone important (to me) errors and misssings, and try to edit them. Most times I just add the hyperlink to equivalent grrek articles and the english one there too. Sometimes there is one, but not a correct one.
• Anyway, if you also want some help in the above subjects, or any issue with greeks (language, the country, our histoty, etc), please feel free to contact with me.

--Vchorozopoulos 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

genpsy

Dear JW Schmidt, I updated the page on genpsy. Some discussion is going on on the subeject. May see this link. http://network.nature.com/groups/bpcc/forum/topics/3422 .

Thanks. DMR Sekhar 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But how to start?

DMR Sekhar 12:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi John. Would you mind rephrasing "Why do you have no interest in allowing Wikiversity participants to experiment with wiki technology and make use of page protection templates" on JK's FC discussion? Rather than assuming he has no interest, perhaps just ask him if he thinks the protection templates have any value (I have no idea what he thinks about them and would be interested in his opinion, but it's better to ask the question without the implicit assumption of his hostility to them). --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "Jade Knight"'s comments at Vision/2009 make clear his lack of interest in having Wikiversity participants experiment with page protection templates. Further, his comments go well beyond a simple lack of interest in experimentation with page protection templates. His comments are unwelcoming to educators and harmful to the mission of Wikiversity. If he demonstrates an interest in supporting Wikiversity participants who want to experiment with page protection then I will gladly change the wording of my question. As things stand, my question is a valid question that helps the community explore his judgment about what Wikiversity is and if he can be trusted to make decisions about what to revert and delete and who to block and discourage from participating at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there... the 2 contributors seemed to be asking about actual page protection (i.e., restricting who can edit), rather than the use of the templates (which ask people not to edit). One of them made it very clear that he's not willing to trust people to not edit when the template is there, so our "job" is to teach him to assume good faith. You need to do a better job of that too, IMO :-).

I guess it's a moot point now, since JK already refused to answer the question as you had put it (it's kind of like the difference between when your wife says "I guess you don't care what I look like since you didn't comment on my shoes" vs. "do you like my new shoes?"... passive-aggressive questions inevitably lead to angry responses, or a refusal to respond). I think I know what you're trying to learn here, so I'll rephrase it for you in a straightforward manner, but please let's not make this a habit ;-).

For readability's sake, would you mind keeping this conversation here on your talk? Or mine if you prefer. Much easier to read when you don't have to keep flipping back and forth! --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

removing test section

Re: [11] I have noticed that trancluded pages sometimes do not show up right away after an edit. I'm not sure what causes the problem. One soluction is too add ?action=purge to the end of the url. For example http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship?action=purge There is also a gadget in Special:Preferences called Add purge tab that does the same thing. --mikeu ^talk 13:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Easier?

I think Wikiversity:Respect pseudonyms could be approved a lot faster and get us over this particular hump... we can merge it into something else later (policy discussions can be very difficult when there's too many things on the plate at once). --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Moulton

Moulton is a banned user by this community. Your characterization of the reasons for his banning are completely wrong, and I recommend that you research it more before jumping into support him so carelessly.

Let me be clear on this: this is not optional. This is not a point of discussion or debate anymore. This community has banned him, the English Wikipedia has banned him, and he has consistently violated our community norms. If you would like to appeal this, then please take it up with Sue Gardner or even the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Or open an appeals process to try to overturn his ban here in the same way that it was confirmed.

But I actually recommend against that. His behavior has been consistent for a long period of time, and his action show me that he is very unlikely to change. He wants to argue pedantically about complete irrelevancies, using ad hominem argumentation to avoid facing up to the fact that his behavior has stepped very far outside community norms.

There is a solution that works quite well in cases like this. Revert, block, ignore.--Jimbo Wales 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to have to break the news to Mr. Wales, but the concept of banning (as he apparently conceives it) went out of style some 3768 years ago, when humankind invented a new regulatory model commonly known as the Rule of Law. In that remarkable innovation in the Advance of Civilization, the designers of that new system of governance devised practices commonly known today as Due Process. Due Process includes such features as a trial or hearing where allegations must be proven with evidence, and where the defendant is afforded the right to examine and refute the evidence and to cross examine any witnesses. Ironically, the very first secular law ever carved into stone tablets dealt with the subject of banning. It was a capital offense to ban someone without just cause and without proving the case at trial. Moreover, the second secular law ever carved into stone tablets provided an independent method for an accused to establish his innocence. Jimbo's ridiculous edict, above, utterly fails on both counts. Moreover, it's not only an Epic Fail, it's an Epoch Fail, since this is the 21st Century, and principles of Due Process, Civil Rights, and Ethical Governance have evolved substantially during the past four millenia. But I appreciate that Jimbo has joined with me to help review this fundamental lesson in civics to the 21st Century youth who are interested in absorbing the central lessons in the sum of all human knowledge. —Moulton 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to appeal this, then please take it up with Sue Gardner or even the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Moulton, why not try this instead of avoiding bans? --Davichito 23:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did contact the WMF Office, a year ago. They did not respond. I have since learned that this is their routine practice. I know of two other academics (both highly distinguished) who were treated even more rudely than I was. And in the process, I gained some insight into the rift between Wales and Sanger, and why Sanger left. —Moulton 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that a process was initiated to see if Moulton could build trust with the community again in order to have such an appeals process be initiated, and this fell apart because of Moulton's continued posting of personal information and other attacks. He has since continued to attack those who tried to give him a way to prove that he deserves to be here. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that the exercise was not so much about building trust, but about engaging with others on topics related to ethical reasoning. The allegations that I had posted personal information were never proven. They were simply asserted and when others asked for evidence and proof, they were brushed off, just as the WMF Office has routinely brushed off academics who complain of corrupt practices. I don't need to prove anything. Those who wish to file charges against me or JWSchmidt or anyone else have the burden of proof. Among the advances of civilization is the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty. Only in Alice in Wonderland does the Red Queen pronounce guilt and sentence Alice (whose "crime" is that she engaged in scholarly inquiry as to what the devil was going on in Wonderland). The WMF has a published Mission Statement and enjoys a 501(c)(3) tax exemption based on representations made to the public and the government. Neither Jimbo Wales nor Ottava Rima can rescind those representations or otherwise undermine the educational mission of the project without jeopardizing the legal status of the project as a donor-funded tax-exempt educational project operating in the public interest. Some people might not want to learn about the contributions of Hammurabi, Moses, Jesus, Beckett, Stephen Langton, Maimonides, Galileo, Darwin, Dostoevsky, Gandhi, King, Thich Nhat Hanh, or the Dalai Lama to the sum of all human knowledge, but those contributions are substantive and meaningful to anyone seeking a comprehensive 21st Century education that includes concepts such as Due Process, Civil Rights, and Ethical Governance. —Moulton 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So there was an attempt. I think that something very important is against Moulton. I have told that to him many times: he is avoiding bans using other IPs. I am not sure but I think it is official policy not to avoid bans. What I mean is that no one will listen to him if he keeps entering here without permission. Even if he does not agree the ban, that is no reason to avoid it. If I don't agree to a law, do I break it? It is unethical and if it were in real life, illegal. IMHO. --Davichito 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Red Queen never listened to Alice, either. Elmer Fudd never listened to Bugs Bunny. Wiley Coyote never listened to the Road Runner. I'm not here to talk to those whose ears are shut to dialogue. I'm here to engage in public dialogue on subjects of educational import with those who value the learning process. Do you know the story of Rosa Parks, the Woolworth's Lunch Counter story, or the stories of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King? —Moulton 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I am not familiar with their stories yet. Every person who is in a discussion must listen, I agree. Dialogue is between two. What I am saying is: do you listen to them? Do you listen to Mike_lifeguard when he bans you from IRC, for instance? Because, if you want to engage in public dialogue, you must try to understand their reasons too. And, IMHO, not by force. For instance, talking about dialogue, when you enter #wikiversiy-en, clearly avoiding a ban, you are trying to shout at their ears because they do not want to listen. Would you shout to someone that has stated that he won't listen to you unless you are officially unbanned in that channel, for instance? See, when people ban in a channel, they expect the other person don't go back because they got tired of listening to him. I have read a literal paste of a conversation between you and mike. He clearly says something like "Do not talk to me anymore, I do not want to listen to you". I think that we may decide whether we want to listen to someone. He does not have to listen to you. If I decided not to listen to anyone, they should respect what I ask, in IRC or talk pages. If not, I would have to do the non polite action to /ignore. So, my question is: if you know some people agree that you are banned at #wikiversity-en, why to go in there and try them to listen to you at all costs? For instance, Mikelifeguard, he said he does not want to listen to you and that you should ask for an unban in there, instead, if you wish to talk in the channel. But what you do is enter through other IPs and then start talking to people do not want to hear. Respect their right to ignore you. You are clearly not listening to him because he has sysop privileges in there so he must follow the policies of the channel so he must act in consequence, else he would not be making his job in there. And he made a recommendation, that you should ask for unbanning in there instead trying to enter through other IPs.

--Davichito 13:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks are suffused with counterfactual assumptions. When I log into #wikiversity-en, I never type a single word. I just go there to listen. When Mike boots me out, he no longer says anything beyond "Bye." That's what makes it like the Woolworth's Lunch Counter Sit-In. Like the students at Woolworth's, I just walk in, sit down, and don't say a word. I do it that way, Davichito, because we are replaying a famous scene in US History from the Civil Rights Era. The point is to do an accurate re-enactment, since this is an educational exercise. Do you see your counterfactual? You assumed I had a wish to talk there. But I had no such wish, no such intention, nor did I utter a word. Moreover, there is no cost. There is rather a payoff, as Mike plays the role of the Woolworth's manager exactly as it took place in the 1960s. The reason I change IPs is because Mike blocks them. The Internet has billions of IPs. IP blocking is largely ineffective (and increasingly so with IPv6 addressing). I am not a vandal. I am here in my traditional role as a scholar, researcher, and educator. But I have no doubt that real vandals know all these methods better than I do. Over on Wikipedia, I notice that admins there had already blocked the SixXS gateway in the Netherlands, which is the only way people on the IPv6 network can reach Wikipedia. That single IP block locks out billions and billions of IPv6 addresses in North America and Europe, as it's the only operational gateway at this time. I am thrilled to have people ignore me. I would be thrilled if Mike or Ottava ignored me. But they are disrupting dialogues between me and those here who do wish to engage in scholarly conversations, per the remit of the WMF Mission Statement. Their disruption of those conversations is something that authentic scholars should be concerned about, as that undermines the advertised function of this site. If Mike has no compunctions about violating the civil rights of one scholar, then he has no compunctions about violating the civil rights of any scholar. My objective here is to reveal to you that fundamental failure of ethical governance, because your education is what matters to me. Mike has elected not to learn anything from me, which is his unalienable right. Everyone has a God-given right to remain ignorant. If Mike elects to exercise that right, there is nothing I can do about it. It's his free choice, full stop. —Moulton 03:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions and Unfinished Conversations from Jimbo's Talk Page

Herewith are the unfinished threads from Jimbo's Talk Page, which he unceremoniously blanked without responding to open issues and questions.

On your deletion of Moulton's page

Jimbo Wales, Wikiversity has been discussing the problems around Moulton's talk page. If you have any concerns, please bring it up to the community, e.g. on the Wikiversity:Colloquium or on Wikiversity:Notices for custodians. You are not an elected custodian and you are no where near in being an active part of the community. It is not appropriate for you to simply step in and perform a custodian action. I would in the very least like to know in what capacity (steward? foundation action? office action?) you did that job. Best, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Not on the Colloquium please... the discussion Hillgentleman refers to is here: Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's talk page. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not allow Wikiversity to be used as a platform for harassment and outing. Period. Call it what you like, I'm drawing the line here: this kind of behavior is unacceptable.--Jimbo Wales 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I call it phony baloney. On my Wikiversity talk page, I asked Mr. Wales to prove his allegations and subject his evidence and witnesses to cross examination, per the principles of Due Process, Evidence-Based Judgments, Civil Rights, and Ethical Governance. Mr. Wales failed to respond, and so his allegations fell for lack of evidence. It is simply not acceptable in this day and age to level false and unproven charges, blithely ignoring due process as if this were a comedic reprise of the Red Queen vs. Alice. Once again, Mr. Wales repeats the silly Red Queen scene, and this time more voices are raised questioning his inexplicable and perplexing practices. What is Mr. Wales teaching impressionable youth of the 21st Century? Does not the sum of all human knowledge include four thousand years of advances in such fundamental concepts as Due Process, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Civil Rights, and Ethical Governance? —Moulton 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hill, not everyone needs to be elected to have power. As a Wikimedia founder, he has power by default. He has also been welcomed by the majority of our community, so he does have authority here either way you look at it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Red Queen also asserted power. In the end, Alice gave up on the Red Queen and her sycophants, exclaiming, "You're nothing but a pack of cards. Who cares for you?" — whereupon the pack of cards all went postal. Of course Lewis Carroll wrote that story for the benefit of 20th Century youth, but it still applies to the current generation of scholars who seek to discover the great lessons to be found in the sum of all human knowledge. —Moulton 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo - I cannot tell if something has been oversighted, but could the edits revealing personal information and the rest be such? One of the issues about deleting the page was to do exactly that. I tried contacting a few people who made the original complaint about a direct diff to the personal information to put forth the request, but no one ever got back to me. If you could find it and oversight to make sure that the information doesn't come back, that would solve any future issues that could arise. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of anything being oversighted. I don't think the people that Moulton is annoying will need oversight, ordinary deletion should be fine.--Jimbo Wales 03:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, here is the content of the requested talk page. Whatever Mr. Wales is going on about can presumably be found there. Could someone be kind enough to find the alleged crime there? —Moulton 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The posted reason for protecting Moulton's Talk Page

Permission error

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• This page has been locked to prevent editing.
• This title has been protected from creation by Jimbo Wales. The reason given is '.

As his reason for taking action, Wales enters into the system log the ever popular Null Reason. Alas, that doesn't seem to be a very meaningful or informative reason. On the other hand it has the advantage that Wales thus has nothing to prove. Fortunately, he is very good at proving nothing at all.

Moulton

• "This is not a point of discussion or debate anymore."

Please explain the basis in Wikimedia governance by which you can make this unilateral proclamation to the Wikiversity community.

• "This community has banned him"''

I am not aware of any Wikiversity community discussion that might have established norms or consensus for bans at Wikiversity. Can you provide a link to such a community discussion? If there is some method for applying external norms (such as those at Wikipedia) to Wikiversity, I think you should explain that process to the Wikiversity community.

• "banned....globally across all projects"

Can you explain how this ban was decided on? Several months ago I tried to get the Wikiversity community to adopt a policy that would provide a basis for dealing with Moulton's practice of using the real names of wiki editors who have made charges against him. I have been charged with "policy manipulation" because of my past attempts to develop needed Wikiversity policies. I have been told that other Wikiversity participants refuse to adopt needed policies such as the Wikiversity privacy policy simply because I think they should be official policy...an attitude that is childish and damaging to this project. Rather than have to impose blocks and bans at Wikiversity, I wonder if it might be a better use of your authority to help guide the Wikiversity community towards the establishment of a few critically needed policies....then the community-appointed custodians will be able to follow those policies and you will not have to step in to perform blocks and bans through some process that exists outside of community consensus.

• "jumping into support him so carelessly"

I once explained to you in IRC chat that I have repeatedly asked Moulton to abandon his practice of using the real names of wiki editors who have made charges against him. I've spent a huge amount of time investigating the "Moulton case" and I do not think my actions can reasonably be characterized as "careless".

• "a platform for harassment and outing"

I do not think that Moulton's practice of using the real names of wiki editors who have made charges against him constitutes harassment. There is a principle of fair play here: is it right to make it possible for wiki editors to publish false claims about living people without there being a way for people to defend themselves and challenge the people who have made the false claims? Moulton's concerns about these kinds of issues can be traced back to his concerns about finding ways to assure a high quality of information in Wikipedia biographies of living persons. Your comments on my talk page seem to suggest that maybe you view such concerns as "complete irrelevancies"....I hope that is not true.

• "I recommend that you research it more"

I would be very interested to see copies of the communications that you have received about Moulton. --JWSchmidt 20:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of inserting bulleted formatting into the above, for ease of reading.

The issue about using real names of critics is related to a principle of scholarly ethics. In academia, when one produces and presents work to an academic audience, one routinely receives comments, feedback, and criticisms that highlight portions of the work that need further attention. It is not that uncommon for a critic to introduce a point that ultimately leads to an improvement in the final product. It is both customary and ethical for a scholar to acknowledge the comments and criticisms of reviewers, especially when those remarks help the process of crafting a better final product. I am obliged to acknowledge those who took the time to critique my work, and credit them where their remarks have proven seminal. If Wikiversity is an authentic academic enterprise, then it is both fitting and proper for me to refer to my commentators by the names they would be known by in academia in the real world. —Moulton 14:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

w:Rationalization (psychology) WAS 4.250 11:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Outing harassers is allowed. WAS 4.250 11:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? Proof? Conscientious scholarly revue? Due process? What is Mr. Wales teaching the impressionable youth of the 21st Century? —Moulton 13:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(<---)There are consequences to behavior. Unfortunately you refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of your behavior. Hopefully "the impressionable youth of the 21st Century" will not be so hard to teach. Also, regarding this; I said "You confuse Jimmy with the Wikimedia Foundation". I did not say "Jimmy Wales has no power and no authority". Do you edit while drunk? I have gotten that impression more than once. WAS 4.250 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Consequences? When one of the admins dons their jackboots, that's my responsibility? Are you familiar with the Arthurian legend of Sir Gawain and Green Knight? There is a mathematical logic that undergirds drama. I play my role, and my antagonist plays his role. The scripts are timeless. Are you saying that Jimbo's actions here have no bearing on the status of the WMF as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit? It occurs to me that if the WMF-sponsored projects deviate substantially from the representations made to the public and to the IRS, and if Jimbo Wales (who set up WMF and chaired it for many years) departs from the advertised mission, the repercussions could well jeopardize the tax-exempt status of WMF (or, more likely, the ability of the WMF to garner project-sustaining donations). —Moulton 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You ask "When one of the admins dons their jackboots, that's my responsibility?" Yes. You have gone out of your way to provoke a reaction. You ask "Are you saying that Jimbo's actions here have no bearing on the status of the WMF as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit?" Yes. The Wikimedia Foundation is not deviating substantially from representations made to the public and to the IRS. What do you think of this? w:Vinod Khosla is her husband. Wikimedia's projects are useful and more useful every year. You're not being allowed to do what you think you should be allowed to do is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. - WAS 4.250 06:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other sensible reactions besides donning the jackboots. You might recall a concept that we called a Social Contract. In the absence of a Social Contract, when there arises the inevitable breach of expectations, instead of working out a peaceable resolution, the party who fancies themselves to be politically dominant is likely to engage in an act of aggression. The ensuing Chinese Fire Drill can eventually be arrested by an agreement conventionally known as a Peace Treaty. The only significant difference between a Social Contract and a Peace Treaty is the timing. In one case it's negotiated before hostilities have broken out; in the other case, it's negotiated after the Chinese Fire Drill. In the 21st Century, it is more appropriate to be thinking about Social Contracts than donning the jackboot and reifying the sorriest regimes of the 20th Century. If you are saying that the WMF has represented to the IRS that they want a tax exempt status to teach the practices of the worst despots of history, I have to wonder for the sanity of both the WMF and the IRS. What I think I should be allowed to do is to play the roles modeled by Socrates, Becket, Langton, Galileo, Gandhi, etc, whilst Jimbo and Company play the roles of King Henry, King John, Pope Urban, the Red Queen, et al. And that is exactly what they have made it possible for me to do. They are most accommodating, eh? What you don't know (since you are not on IRC) is the audience of young people watching this drama and making up their mind which side to subscribe to. As you know, Ottava Rima has joined the Dark Side. Isn't that remarkable? —Moulton 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(<---) This caused this. Are you as useful? WAS 4.250 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Two comments...

First of all, note the text in the blue banner at the top of the page of the first link:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

That's the quote that you previously dismissed as irrelevant.

So, is the quote relevant and persuasive or not?

More to the point, is the quote an honest representation of Jimbo's vision for what WMF plans to do with its funds?

Secondly, what is WMF really doing with its resources? Last night, on Wikipedia, there was a remarkable demonstration of the kind of dramaturgy that WP RfCs have become known for. Even Dan Tobias weighed in and called the admins filing the RfC "jackboot thuggery" against an editor who was playing Alice to their Red Queen.

Ironically, the Red Queen admins were being led by an editor going by the name of Baseball Bugs (Bunny). Yet he was playing the role of Elmer Fudd, ever ready with his shotgun to mindlessly blast away at that Wascally Wabbit who had the temerity to actually comment in the RfC.

In that current case, the RfC was less a request for comments, and more a request for cartoons.

If WMF uses those funds, solicited under false pretenses, to promote the Jimbonic Jackboot Culture, the inevitable backlash will parallel the Madoff collapse, as donors realize that Jimbo made off with their donations to fund his world travels whilst entraining impresssionable 21st Century youth into a culture of fascism, oblivious of such modern educational ideals as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Evidence-Based Judgments, Presumption of Innocence, Trial By Jury, Civil Rights, Separation of Powers, Ethical Governance, Freedom of Inquiry, and Scholarly Ethics.

—Moulton (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the US constitution worthless because it is a goal incompletely realized? You mistake goals for past accomplishments. WAS 4.250 16:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The concepts of Due Process, Evidence-Based Judgments, Presumption of Innocence, Trial By Jury, Civil Rights, Separation of Powers, No Bill of Attainder, etc, were in the minds of the Founders, who expressly saw fit to write them into the Constitution. Here, in Wikiland, these concepts are not even contemplated as applicable goals. Ethical Governance, Freedom of Inquiry, and Scholarly Ethics have been expressly rejected as cultural values; they are not even unrealized goals. The fascistic custodians here have expressly rejected those values in favor of adopting abhorrent practices that Americans went to war to rid the world of some 70 years ago. —Moulton (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be able to edit Wikiversity just fine. Are you actually unable to distinguish the virtual world from meat-space? WAS 4.250 10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just fine? Hardly. Editing Wikiversity is like placing a phone call to Katmandu. It's possible but still a hurdle. I am a lifelong educator. I carry out educational projects in many media, including electronic media, just as I carry out some conversations by telephone and some by sitting down in the same room with a person. The challenge of networking is to make the network as transparent as possible. When I use VOIP with one of my correspondents, the audio quality can be so clear that one forgets the other person is not sitting in the same room, but is actually 2000 miles away. Perhaps someday you will consent to hook up a Mic to your computer and chat voice with me. —Moulton (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(<---)None-the-less, you persist in making inappropriate claims about cyber-space based on claims about meat-space. WAS 4.250 17:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What specific claim do you have in mind? —Moulton (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"No Bill of Attainder" for example. WAS 4.250 07:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following notice, which appears in my browser when I first undertake to respond to you here...

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Ottava Rima. The reason given is Abusing multiple accounts. You can contact Ottava Rima or another custodian to discuss the block. You can use the 'email this user' feature (in the left-hand sidebar of a custodian's user page) provided a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 68.163.107.39. Please include this in any queries. Blocked users can edit their own user discussion page. If you are not logged in as a registered user, use the user discussion page for your IP address: here. You can add the Template {{Unblock}} to your user discussion page in order to request unblocking.

Monarchial Bill of Attainder (and later, Parliamentary Bill of Attainder) were features of human political culture for thousands of years. Then, around the time of the American Revolution, that practice was abandoned, on the grounds that it ineluctibly corrupted any administration that employed it. Those lessons of history are part of the sum of all human knowledge. Moreover, they are of sufficient import in political consciousness that the prohibition on Bill of Attainder appears in Article I of the US Constitution. That WikiCulture still employs the cyberspace equivalent of Bill of Attainder reveals that the Custodians here have not yet caught up to where Thomas Jefferson took us 225 years ago. More to the point, note the fascistic cultural model that Ottava Rima, Mike.Lifeguard, and Darklama are learning from Jimbo and spreading amongst the community of 21st Century youth who inhabit these halls of learning. Yesterday, Emesee put out feelers for starting a more enlightened site than the dark one that Wikiversity has morphed into in the shadow of Jimbo's Jackboot Juggernaut. It matters to me what ideas and practices young people are learning and adopting in cyberspace educational venues. And I daresay I am not alone in expressing that concern. —Moulton (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What aspects of that lead you to believe that that is the "cyberspace equivalent of Bill of Attainder"? Arbcom creating a policy that bans a named individual might qualify, but you are not banned by being named in a policy, you are banned based on being convicted by a consensus of people believing that you insist on disrupting Wikiversity by pointlessly naming names you have been asked not to name. You can be unbanned anytime you agree to act according to consensus on how you should act. You insist on behaving in ways you have been asked not to. You reap the consequences of your own behavior. That's just banging your head against the wall and blaming others for getting your head bloody. WAS 4.250 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom played no role in establishing my status. FloNight expressly declined, on behalf of ArbCom, to review my status, as it was established by a single individual, Tracy Walker, acting on her own, outside of community process.

Actually, on second thought why waste yet more time on WP:CSN? I'm just going to indef and post on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, on Wikiversity, Jimbo Wales, who is not even a participant here, acted independently, outside of community process, assured that few would challenge him, after he had threatened to shut down the whole project if anyone dared overturn him. And so other timid Custodians, including SB_Johnny, Mike Umbricht, Mike.Lifeguard, Darklama, and Ottava Rima jumped onboard the Jimbonic Jackboot Juggernaut. Is this what WMF sought tax-exempt status for? To teach the practice of fascism to impressionable youth of the 21st Century? —Barry Kort, Ph.D. 11:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays guys

John, WAS, Moulton, and everyone else reading this page. Happy holidays. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be happier if I didn't have to travel 20 miles to find a computer with an unblocked IP addresss to return your holiday greetings, Mr. Grinch. —Moulton 15:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I skip to the chase and just get you coal next year? :P Have a good new year Moulton. Spend time with some friends and family. Have some fun. Take a break. Try to enjoy yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What I sincerely wish you would do, if you are fortunate enough to be with family this week, is to visit with those of your grandparents' generation who were alive during the Second World War. I reckon your grandparents would have been too young to have fought in that war, but perhaps old enough to be aware of what it was all about. As you know, the pogroms of Eastern Europe evolved into the most notorious Holocaust in the annals of human history. Today, Christians around the world are celebrating the birth of an infant who, at age 25, would become one of the most famous Rabbis in human history. At age 30, this radical young scholar would propose to upgrade the Covenent of Moses to address continuing issues of oppression, injustice, and political violence that were undermining the Roman Empire. He was not warmly received by his contemporaries, but his ideas did not die on the cross with him. The gift I seek is the Gift of Epiphany, like the one John Newton experienced. —Moulton (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I had three uncles who served in WW2. One was a tank commander who drowned when the Rhine was flooded. One was a pilot who was shot down. The other was a paratrooper who was shot down. My family has served this country in combat for 232 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed with your surviving family members of that era why they were willing to lay down their lives to put an end to pogroms and fascism? Have you discussed with those of your parents' generation why you have abandoned the Teachings of Jesus and the Principles of Thomas Jefferson to reprise the abhorrent practices that Jimbo's Jackboot Juggernaut are now inexplicably introducing back into the 21st Century donor-funded educational curriculum of Wikiversity? —Moulton (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the only fascism taking place is a user who is using personal information to attack and destroy others, then going around protections to make sure it sticks. You do know that the Nazis did that to the Jews, right? So, fair is fair, you are acting like a fascist. Stop the hate, Moulton. Jesus said to love another. He said to turn the other cheek. He also said to silently endure. You aren't doing any of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

May I quote you on that and call upon that distinguished young scholar to support his thesis with evidence, reasoning, and analysis, and submit it to scholarly peer review by his colleagues in Academia? —Barry Kort, Ph.D. 11:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is an archive of old discussions. Please do not edit this page. Continue these discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt. There are other archives at User talk:JWSchmidt/Discussion archive.

Please help!!!

I followed links to get here with the hope I can reach a person who can break this down to the overly educated with limited internet experience (with the exception being research - but contributing? not something I have done online)

I came to you because the beginning of my link path was in the performing arts, and I hope to connect with another artistic mind who won't judge the wikilliterate.

I would love to help in the performing arts department, I studied acting at The American Academy of Dramatic Arts in both NY and LA, I found their evening program (NY) to be quite wonderful, but the full time program left me wanting more. I have found other methods and techniques that have been more productive for me and would love the opportunity to share what I have learned. If you could help me get started. I get the formatting stuff, I think I am just unsure if I should just dive in or if that is some kind of no-no, I guess just creating an article seems presumptuous.

Demosthenes13 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)