User talk:Jtneill/Archive/2011

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

You might also be interested in...[edit]

{{who}}, {{what}}, {{where}}, {{why}}, {{when}}, and {{how}}. I saw you created {{example}} and there was already {{huh}} and {{fact}}. I thought I'd go all out, and you might want to use these too. -- darklama  12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thankyou. These are really handy - will definitely use them. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
LauraHale suggested to me that you might also be interested in Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?/Draft as part of some effort going on at http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Canberra -- darklama  00:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Motivation_and_emotion/References[edit]

This seems to be an empty category, but it attracted Caprice to add a comment to its talk page that belongs instead on Talk:Motivation and emotion/References, where it would make sense. Fix it? --Abd 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I previously asked the same question here. I went ahead and moved it to the correct location. —Caprice 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

delete all my pages, now[edit]

i think its appropriate that i ask you to delete all my pages. I regrouped them in my user page. And delete my user page too when you finish.--Deweirdifier 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 2[edit]

I see you are on wikibreak, now that I've started the candidacy page. Whatever. I did point to your offer to mentor, we'll see what happens. No hurry. I hope you enjoy your break. --Abd 04:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. I closed that page because you were gone and it was simply creating noise with no effect. I'd never have put it up if I'd realized you were on wikibreak. No rush right now, I'm really, really busy, already spending more time here than I can afford. I do have some interesting things going on with Wikiversity:Playspace as a way to try to turn lemons into lemonade, to encourage very young users. This sometimes could use custodial tools, mostly to revision-delete real names for probable minors, they will do that with high frequency, I expect. I'm finding evidence that the playspace project is working. At least the current crop of probable young users are learning something about wiki markup, and seem to be cooperating and appreciative. --Abd 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, OK, thanks, just catching up - have undone my comment to that closed nomination. But my comments would stand if/when you wish to re-open. -- Jtneill - Talk - c

To avoid the train wreck of Abd 2, the waste of time from premature discussion, let me suggest that you revert the closure of that candidacy page, you hereby have my permission to do that. Thus, if you also restore your comment, your consent to mentorship is immediately evident.

There is plenty of precedent for a 'crat agreeing to mentor and immediately implementing, since policy is quite clear that community consent is not necessary for a probationary period to start. SBJ did it, for example, with the controversial Salmon of Doubt (and I've often approved of that move, though I think I know who Salmon of Doubt was, and would be, otherwise, quite concerned). It's also been done recently. Naturally, if the community expressed, through a broad discussion, like a full custodianship request, or, alternately, through a Community Review, likewise announced, disapproval, that would ice it. The problem with Abd 2 was that it immediately attracted some quite expectable negative comment, but no broad comment, the only thing that surprised me there was the comment from another 'crat. But I'd agree that you should not close a permanent candidacy if you have been the mentor, unless community consent is totally obvious.

If you decide not to implement, that's fine, but it is predictable that this will then generate more useless argument. I'm willing to agree to any conditions you set: if you set some condition that I can't accept, before going ahead with implementation, I'll simply decline. But I very much doubt that I'd decline. My prior period as a custodian shows exactly what kind of controversy I might get into, and none of it involved anything that, on review, would have been abuse of tools. You know what the main controversial action was, and the community recently, effectively, confirmed that the action was something that might have been necessary.

I have no problem with reassuring others, though, through sensible restrictions. I see needs for me to have the tools that simply make for higher efficiency and faster non-controversial action, in a few cases. --Abd 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the way your last probationary custodianship ended was a bit confusing, I can understand why James might feel a bit iffy about pressing the button himself. However, if you fellas are ready to start, I wouldn't mind doing it. It wouldn't be a bad thing to clarify what the actual rules about that are supposed to be, of course :-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
SBJ, I'm willing to agree to any reasonable conditions for the safety of the community, and, perhaps you know, I've proposed clear and simple recusal policy, to avoid some of the situations we have seen. I may write too much, but that's not really related to how I'd act as a custodian. When tools are used, there is an obligation to be succinct as well as clear in explanations. --Abd 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I was responding to James's comment here, not offering to co-mentor. --SB_Johnny talk 09:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I knew that. I'm just allowing it, as a possible way of meeting community concerns. I don't know that it's necessary. --Abd 14:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't necessary, and I really wouldn't have enough time to properly monitor you (especially because you tend to post a lot of text per day). --SB_Johnny talk 17:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in the policy suggests that the community does not have a say in the matter, and the many concerns expressed about the candidate multiple times would suggest that they are not qualified for Custodianship. If that means getting a community vote to remove the whole process to prevent it being abused here, then make that clear and we will start the vote. A crat's first job is to respect the community's opinion, which is something that both of you (SB Johnny and Jtneill) had an obvious problem with doing in the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ottava has the right to his opinion, but nobody is suggesting that the community "does not have a say," but policy and practice clearly show that the "community" isn't asked as part of this process. There is no period established for comment, and probationary candidacies are not announced. Practice is that a candidate requests, a custodian mentor agrees, and then a 'crat, when one is available, immediately assigns the bit. People may comment, sure, but I've seen no precedent for a mentor to agree and then a 'crat doesn't assign the bit. I have also seen no example of abuse of the process. When? Who was assigned a probationary bit improperly? What problems did it cause?
If some actual abuse, by a probationary custodian, were shown, there is a ready remedy: complaint to the mentor. For this reason, having more than one mentor might be a great idea. I consider my bit usage subject to whatever restrictions the mentor sets. I'd ask that, if I have more than one mentor, one is my "primary mentor" and could, if necessary, over-rule the other, and I ask for this to be Jtneil; but SBJ, if you accepts being an additional mentor, could act as needed in Jt's absence. That makes it all safer. But it's quite safe anyway. (Mistakes are reversible, it's a wiki!) --Abd 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Mistakes are reversible, it's a wiki!
That's a nice theory, but it's not supported by the evidence. Are you sure it's not just a pipe dream? —Caprice 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't confuse "wiki" with "particular community." Mistakes are reversible, on wikis, in general, the software makes it easy. In this case, a "mistake" would be the undoing of an action of mine, and every action I could do as a custodian is quickly reversible. It would also refer to a desysopping of me in some perceived emergency. JWS was emergency desysopped. That, as well, could have been undone, and probably would have been undone, except that JWS reacted so strongly, and didn't ask for it to be undone, as far as I've seen. I suggested that he take up the tools again, but he seems to prefer to carry the gadfly position. You did, as well, claiming many times that you preferred to be banned, it gave you more freedom. But, obviously, your ban could have been undone, and was undone, right? Adambro reblocked, but, on my suggestion, undid that. The Moulton account could be delinked and unblocked here, and, I assume, would be, if you simply ask for it. Unless, of course, you start up again what you did before. Right now, you aren't under attack here. If you come under attack, real or perceived, how will you respond? That'll be the test, in fact. --Abd 14:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick and simple[edit]

James, Abd: you're both ready to go here? If so, I'll push the button so that you two can move on with the process. The comments/retracted comments/kilobytes of text stuff isn't giving me a simple diff to point to.

Something along the lines of simple yes/no would be helpful. Apologies if that seems a bit snippy :-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • RfC on making Community Consensus necessary has been proposed. If Bureaucrats don't want to listen to the community's voice then a hard line policy making it impossible for them not to do so is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. No problem, SBJ. I consent to the reopening of that candidacy, you can revert my closure if you are ready, and Jtneil has made it explicit he's willing to go ahead, so, if you'd like, you can reopen and push the button. If that turns out to be an error, I won't oppose your undoing it at meta! Truly, it could have been done as soon as I opened that candidacy, from JT's prior comment (I applied only because he volunteered to mentor, I didn't ask!), but it wasn't, which then created all that flap, which you don't need to read, it's dicta at this time, moot for the process.
As to relevant evidence, this is probably more than you need:

Thanks for addressing this nomination, SBJ, I have reopened the Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 2 discussion and indicated that I am willing to mentor Abd for probationary custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you realize that by making such a statement, you are abusing the community's trust, right? A bureaucrat is supposed to make actions based on the community and not personal opinion. Do you really need to be removed forcefully to prevent you from acting in such a blatantly wrong manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I trust the community to indicate it's degree of trust in Abd if he is granted probationary custodianship and is subsequently nominated for custodianship by the end of a probationary period. I am offering as a custodian willing to mentor and will not be acting as a bureaucrat with regard to this matter. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. He was given a chance. He wasn't recommended which means he doesn't get any second chances or a vote. He went up for a vote out of process anyway. He failed. No where in the policy does it say that someone failed to be recommended can try again! And no where does it say that community concerns are ignored! You can't just substitute your own bad desires for what exists. That is pure abuse of authority and you have done a lot of that these past 6 months. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A proposal has been put up to make it blatant that you aren't allowed to act this way. If you proceed anyway, then a proposal to terminate the mentorship all together will be necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Educational value! AAHA[edit]

Really Jtneil! Really! Because I love president Jack. Newseerr

Please contact and Send a message to User:Newseerr/Aaqib biggest news letter[edit]

User:Newseerr/Aaqib biggest news letter needs you to contact the page and leave a message on the talk page. You shouldn`t be acting crazy and funny in User:Newseerr. User:Ritnor

This is one of our "playspace" kids ("w:Maybeury Elementary School", I think), and that this user has contacted you on your Talk page is progress. Communication. Ritnor, if you read this, thanks for being responsive. Most things you'd want to do here can be done, if in the right way. Ask me for help, any time, if you have questions, on User talk:Abd. --Abd 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that some of these kids -- or maybe there is just one -- may have multiple accounts. I suggest that if those aren't causing a specific problem, we allow it for a while. For example, Newseerr could also be Ratnor. In user space, I don't mind a puppet show, at all. Or they are separate students. Some of the things they have done, no, it's not okay, but everybody makes mistakes, at first.
There are long-term issues, which should probably be discussed at Wikiversity:Playspace. Thanks. --Abd 18:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Abd[edit]

Why are you continuing to mentor this user? It is quite clear that he is unsuitable to be a custodian and that he does not have the trust of enough users here. He will never be suitable. His long-winded wittering is exactly what we do not need in a custodian. He also, quite without seeing that he is doing so, increases drama here. So please, stop mentoring him and close that long rambling discussion about the whole issue of his custodianship. --Bduke 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

James, I know you believe very strongly in giving people a chance, but it's pretty clear that Abd doesn't stand much of a chance of being confirmed, and his status as a probationary custodian is causing serious concern (and at least one mild headache). Please consider either calling it off or perhaps making your recommendation now (to bump up the confirmation schedule so we can move on). --SB_Johnny talk 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for you to step down[edit]

Please see. Since there is no Bureaucratship policy, no one can make up statements about a Crat being required to remove a Crat, and seeing as how Bureaucratship requires a super majority of support, it seems highly unlikely that you will be allowed to continue. You can end unnecessary drama by resigning your Bureaucratship now and limiting yourself to using administrative tools solely for your professorial work. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily closed the CRs filed by Ottava on you and Mike. He has now opened CRs on all active 'crats, with the two on you being the second ones to be filed by him. It appears that his hope is to create a recusal requirement for all, setting up conditions for a steward to decide on what he'll take there that would ordinary require a 'crat. At first glance this might seem preposterous, but, it is not impossible that Ottava has been telling the truth, that there are some stewards who have promised to act given the opening. There are stewards who do not understand why Wikiversity would unblock Thekohser and Moulton, such strong critics of the WMF. It could be payback time.
However, when all must recuse, none must recuse, that's a basic principle. I am making a claim of emergency, allowing me to act as needed. I will wait some time, but, if the situation has gotten so bad that no neutral custodian will intervene, not even to restrain me, I consider it my responsibility to act. I have offered to stand down upon warning from any custodian. I think that the extended disruption involving Ottava may have burned out most of those who might otherwise act. Darklama told me that he'd been watching, but didn't know what to do. After all, he already blocked Ottava once.
Adrignola, who was considering helping out here, has withdrawn that interest, and I know that this is based on what is being allowed to continue unabated. I don't need tools to do what I personally want to do with Wikiversity, but if WV can't handle crises like this, I have little hope for the future.
Please review, I need your advice and support. --Abd 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ottava and Abd (and SB_Johnny and BDuke). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I realise that differences in opinion about how WV should operate and deal with perceived problems etc. seem to have escalated, but I'm failing to see this as emergency or need for quick action - either for sudden desysopping of a probationary custodian (Abd) or wholesale spill of Bureaucrats or blocking of Ottava. I respect Ottava's and Abd's opinion (though I think the collaborative tone could be improved), but I think one step at a time. A custodian (Jtneill) offered to mentor an interested candidate (Abd) 3 weeks ago and as per policy a bureaucrat (SB_Johnny) gave the candidate custodian rights. That probationary period is underway and at the end of that period I will possibly recommend for full custodianship followed by community discussion - or not. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the most important lines on the Custodianship page is "Custodianship is a responsibility, not a right. While everyone is encouraged to apply for custodianship, the position is not suited for everyone." That fundamental belief was ignored by both yourself and Abd. That is the main reason why your Bureaucratship is proposed to be terminated and you prohibited from taking on any new mentees. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your concerns here, Ottava. From I can tell, your concerns revolve around interpretation of custodianship policy with regard to who can become a probationary custodian and the process the community would like to see followed? Just to clarify - my understanding is that (currently) probationary custodianship can be granted where there is a willing custodian to mentor. I understand you have made a proposal that community discussion and support is needed before granting someone probationary custodian status - and there may well be some merit in such a proposal - but that is not part of the current custodianship policy. Then if a probationary custodian is recommended by a mentor for custodianship the community is invited to discuss which leads to either full custodianship or the removal of probationary custodian status. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"but that is not part of the current custodianship policy" A Bureaucrat's first duty is to listen to the community, not make bold proclamations about a "policy" that was never formally passed by the community that isn't the actual probationary custodian policy. If you bothered to look, we don't have an official probationary custodianship policy and never had. We've never passed the Custodian policy. And the Bureaucrat policy wasn't passed either. You have no excuse to ignore the people as you serve the people not yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The real issue here is obfuscated. It takes two steps to make a custodian. A defect in the policy is that the right to revoke is not explicit in the policy, it's left to individual mentor/probationer or 'crat discretion. My opinion is that the mentor and the approving 'crat should have the right to do this:

  1. Require the probationer to cease specific actions, a specific class of actions, or all use of tools.
  2. Go to meta at any time to request the tools be lifted. This has often been granted voluntarily, but it should be automatic.

However, these would not terminate the candidacy, they would either suspend some part of the custodian's work, or stop it, but the candidacy would remain. If the mentor withdraws, the candidate may then obtain a new mentor, and the approving crat may object or accept, and flip the bit again if needed. In my last period, I did grant to all 'crats the right to revoke my custodianship, but it wasn't used, in fact. However, as a general policy, it should just be the approving 'crat, and, because of this and possible problems, the mentor/probationer should be able to reject an approving 'crat, and seek a different one. I don't know for sure what happened, but I can sure see a possibility that a 'crat allowed what was going on to continue, precisely to gain cover for what he wanted in the first place. I'll cover this in an eventual review.

The policy implies that the approval of the 'crat is automatic. That, if intentional, was an error. Like all actions by a privileged user, the 'crats approval should be founded in actual approval. If the 'crat does not approve, then the 'crat should not approve! That's a safeguard, it makes creating a probationary custodianship not a unilateral action, it takes two: the mentor and the approving 'crat. Had the approving 'crat been considered a kind of default second mentor, would there have been problems with my term? I can say this: if there were, it would have been more obvious who was behind the problems! I was asking, practically begging, for independent custodial review. And it wasn't forthcoming.

That should never happen to a custodian again.

John, I'm being, shall we say, forthright, at this point. As far as I'm concerned, civility policy was tossed in the toilet, and by SBJ. There are consequences to that. I've noticed that JWS was allowed by this community to continue to disrupt, to attack almost every candidate for custodianship, and I've noticed that Ottava went way beyond what had gotten him blocked before, and nothing was done, except as I tried to do something. Wikiversity is not a safe place, so I'm not about to pretend that it is, to be "nice." Establish real civility policy, with real enforcement, I'll be far happier, because civility is, as our policy claims, an essential part of consensus formation. Until we have that, we will not be able to find consensus, and we will continually fail to attract and keep new users. We've been driving them away, and if I'm part of that problem, I invite enforcement of the policy, and if it means that I'm blocked, it will be worth it. I'm not going to allow this ignoring of blatant disruption to continue.

I'm not deliberately disrupting, if I wanted to do that, you'd see socking. I'm just being, shall we say, frank.

Thanks for your support in the past. I am not assuming, and nobody should assume, that you support my present behavior. I'm responsible for me, not you. As far as I've seen, you have been almost alone in supporting civility policy, you warned Ottava, and that is precisely why he filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill. Frankly, that should have been it as to his sysop bit, immediately, the writing was on the wall. He'd violated recusal policy multiple times by then, and was completely defiant about it. He'd also blocked me, by the way.

Probationary custodians should be treated with respect. They aren't. Good policy, good supervisory procedure, should help. --Abd 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OR NOT[edit]

Here is some OR (Original Research) on NOT (No Original Thinking).

A few weeks ago, Mike Umbricht raised to Moulton's attention the work of Harry Collins, who came up with the notion of Interactional Expertise. In Interactional Expertise, one learns the vocabulary terms and phrases associated with some subject and parrots them back as a "word salad" that superficially sounds impressive, but at ground level contains no substantive original thinking. Using Interactional Expertise, one can "talk the talk" but not "walk the walk."

In June of 2001, I wrote this blog entry on The Musings of Montana Mouse:

Wed, 06 Jun 2001

Moulton's an odd bird.

He says everything is connected to everything else.

God help anyone who questions that. Moulton will spend the next four hours drawing a detailed map revealing how everything is connected to everything else.

And not in two-part melody and four-part harmony with an occasional bridge between stanzas.

Nope nope nope. He just weaves it all together like some huge Tapestry that you couldn't even hang on the Berlin Wall, if it were still standing.

He drives the Juke-Boxers nutso.

Who are the Juke-Boxers, you ask?

Heh. That's Moulton's metaphor for people who park every little song and dance in a separate slot. The compartmentalizers, except he doesn't use that long word. He just calls 'em Juke-Boxers.

Moulton sez most people store information the way a Juke Box stores records. In little separate compartments. Adjacent records have little or nothing to do with each other.

Moulton sez about one person in 100 doesn't use the Juke Box method to compartmentalize stuff. Instead they weave Tapestries. Giant maps with stories embedded all over them. And with a Tapestry, everything is woven together, everything is connected to everything else.

Bards work from Tapestries. They can spin a tale by plotting out a path from one point on the Tapestry to another, like a Journey.

Moulton sez a Juke-Box can't compose music, can't even play medleys. It has to play one record at a time, and if you don't like that record, you have to hit the Reject Button. So Juke-Boxers are used to Rejection.

But Tapestry Weavers are a different story. They operate on an entirely different principle. To Reject a part of a Tapestry is to tear a hole in the Fabric of Civilization itself.

Moulton sez it's hard for Juke-Boxers to grok Tapestry Weavers. Juke Boxers have no way to store a whole Tapestry. They only have the capacity to store a large collection of unrelated records, like cutting up the Tapestry into little squares. They miss the big picture hidden in the Tapestry.

Montana Mouse

In 1996, Sociology Professor Alan Sokal demonstrated the seductive power of Interactional Expertise by perpetrating a hoax known as the Sokal Affair:

The Sokal affair (also known as Sokal's hoax) was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the magazine's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to learn if such a journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if it (a) sounded good and (b) flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

A year before the Sokal Affair, Carl Sagan published a book entitled, The Demon Haunted World in which he proposed his Baloney Detection Kit to defend against being bamboozled by jibberish that superficially looks erudite and impressive, but contains no original thought, just a meaningless sequence of words that form sentences that are grammatically and syntacticly correct, but are devoid of any significant semantics or useful information.

James, are you familiar with the curious phrase, "Teaching grandmother to suck eggs"?

Six days ago, a journalist in Cold Fusion used the phrase here in a comment thread on the Google Knol article on Cold Fusion:

I don't mean to teach grandma how to suck eggs here, and this is not an appeal to authority, but let me point out that these experiments have been performed by people such as Fleischmann and Bockris. —Jed Rothwell

Four days later, Abd echoed that obscure expression back to Moulton on his blog, Moulton Lava:

Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. —Abd Lomax

James, can you tell when you are being served up a cold dish of baloney and eggs?

Montana Mouse (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Barry, although I confess this may have gone over my head. Does it mean basically, "Do I buy Abd's rhetoric?"? If so, I generally try to play the ball rather than the man, by which I mean I try to focus on the topic, content, issue etc. more so than the person/character. So, yes I buy some of what Abd has to say and some of what you have to say etc. - and am interested in robust critique of it all too. I may have missed the mark here, though, so feel free to enlighten. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Now and then you come to a person whose idiosyncratic style is so unique, they are one of a kind — sui generis. When reckoning the distinctly characteristic practices of such an "odd bird," it's hard to distinguish the egg-shaped ball from the egg-sucking ball carrier. For example, Abd writes "walls of text" and I write "atrocious song parodies." I answer his spectacular walls of text with a musical wall of sound in the spirit and tradition of Phil Spector. According to Isaac Newton, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In drama, the reactions are not precisely equal and opposite, but complementary (like Yin and Yang) such that the beat goes on. The Process of Enlightenment works in Mysterious Plays. Sometimes the play is a musical comedy. —Moulton 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Uc-logo.gif[edit]

I've uploaded a png and replaced the gif everywhere. I'll leave the gif in your capable hands. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please![edit]

Can you please delete Sponsor episodes , --Ascoboo 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Ascoboo

Already deleted by Mu301. This is a Maybeury user, I believe. I'm trying to encourage them to keep their tests and learning editing to user pages. Difficult, they are apparently quite young, elementary school students. I want to encourage them, but also to confine the "damage." --Abd 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

CR CR[edit]

FYI, you might be interested in a little experiment that we are trying at User:SB Johnny/CR CR‎ as a possible model for improving WV:CR. --mikeu talk 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this serious?[edit]

I noticed Proposed closure of wikiversity. Do you know how serious this is?Leutha 17:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not serious. See meta:Proposals for closing projects. --SB_Johnny talk 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I took it seriously too. I added citation tags to request clarification. I hope there is no out of process discussion to close Wikiversity again and people are failing to make the community adequately aware of it. -- darklama  20:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it may follow from the News item on the main page - from 2010. Perhaps it should be updated. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
More political simulation and gaming by any chance? Leighblackall 05:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Dignity to the Life Skills list[edit]

Thanks so much for for adding the nascent Dignity course to the Life Skills list! --Lbeaumont 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I sneezed a sneeze into the air.
It came down I know not where.
But indignant were the looks of those
In whose vicinity I snoze.

Resolutions[edit]

Hi James. I think we're making some progress with reforming Community Review to make it more useful and approachable. I've created a "resolutions" subpage in the interests of adopting the things we might agree upon, and leaving the things we still need to discuss for later. My hope is that by getting these reforms through we will be able to pursue further reforms, since that's pretty much what CRs should do.

With that in mind, please comment on Wikiversity:Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions.

I'm leaving this note because you've already commented. If you comment on nothing else, please let your opinion be clear on using the sitenotice (part of resolution #4). --SB_Johnny talk 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

As you can see I am off and running with a course syllabus already. I wonder if others will participate in developing this course. Obviously it will primarily be Californians who will be aware of the underlying content. But others might help with widgets and Wikiversity know-how.

California Politics is not too weird and complex - sort of like subatomic particle physics or psycho-nuero-immunology or Paganini violin solos: after a while it all starts to hang together.

Geofferybard 03:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice of an amended resolution[edit]

Hi James. I'd like to make sure that you're aware of an amended version of a CR resolution you commented upon. Please let the community know if you're satisfied with the text of the new resolution.

On a personal note, please have a gander at my scratch page, and let me know your thoughts on that! --SB_Johnny talk 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Heya. While your around, any thoughts on these? I think it would be good if we could adopt a few of the basic structure things so that we can discuss some other issues that are hanging around ("real names", mentorship, and perhaps an issue based discussion of whatever the new Ottava review is about). --SB_Johnny talk 11:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and your ongoing efforts here - have tried some minor redrafting - hope it helps - these ideas seem worth a go to me. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedits, they read much better now. I guess I just want to move on with the CR fix so that we can have sensible discussions about some of the other things that are going on.
I get the impression that you are also getting a little tired of the back-and-forth "CRs" about individual users. One of the things I think would be an improvement would be to have the reviews focus narrowly on policies, since at least a lot of this seems to come about because the policies are unclear. While I don't think having an overly complicated policy structure is a good thing, CRs that focus on "the rules we can all live by" are likely to be better in the long term than are CRs that focus on "whether we like what this particular person is doing" (and may serve over time to become something like a "social contract"). --SB_Johnny talk 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be happy to see this switch towards a focus on policy. If this is to be the focus, though, why not call it Policy Review? And separately, User Review. At the moment Policy/User seems somewhat mashed together in Community Review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Corruption Review[edit]

JTN, I need your help.

How can I carry out a Corruption Review?

Moulton 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure - seems like this belongs on Wikipedia but I guess you're blocked there and dissatisfied with their dispute resolution processes? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Alas, Wikipedia doesn't have a functional conflict resolution process. This is related to the broader challenge of finding the best practices for dealing with intimidation and autocratic bullies and the best practices for dealing with people manifesting Cluster B characteristics. I'm afraid this one is well beyond my pay grade, and I frankly need help from someone of your caliber. —Moulton 12:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I suspect it may be beyond my pay grade too - but I'm interested to see what's possible. The pattern I've seen looks somewhat intractable. At the University of Canberra/RCC User:Leighblackall suggested to me the idea of getting WV parties in conflict into the one physical space to talk face to face. Sounds fanciful, but may be some out of the box approach could help. Its hard for me to imagine people risking letting go of ego-protective states when relational trust/AGF is low. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
James, perhaps we can start with a simple case. Today, one of your students wrote:
(03:51:25 PM) LauraHale: Moulton: You're perceived as one of those forces of corruption. And you're again all talk but no action. (Except to be what you claim is part of the problem.)
I responded:
(03:52:27 PM) Moulton: Let's have a Collegiate Peer Review of that, Laura. Please convene a panel of accredited academics to review that.
James, in view of Laura's initiative to have an ethics review panel, I would like to have an open panel of academics, including yourself and Leigh, review how Laura's above stated perception came to her awareness, and whether or not she believes it's a fair characterization worth repeating in public to others.
Moulton 21:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Got a diff or log? (curious about context). Laura's not a student of mine but that's really neither here nor there. Have you discussed the source of her perception with her and shared your perception? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
That's from the #wikiversity IRC channel, yesterday. If you want the surrounding portions of the IRC log, let me provide it for context. I asked her the very question you suggested, but she immediately changed the subject and quickly thereafter went idle on IRC. Here's the surrounding log:


So, in any event, Laura and I both believe we need ethical review panels here, and I would like to give her express idea a trial run. Since we would need something concrete to review, I propose we review her above quoted comment to me that I am "perceived as one of those forces of corruption." And since she urges me to be less theoretical and more pro-active, I would like to pro-actively take up her suggestion by convening the ethical review panel that she proposes. Would you, Leigh Blackall, and Nancy White please accommodate our joint request to try out such an ethical review panel?

Many thanks.

Moulton (Barry Kort) (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither conflict resolution or ethical review are areas of my expertise. But I would encourage parties in (unsatisfactory) disagreement to have more conversation about their differing perceptions before I'd want to get much involved. I also think there are (at least two) different aspects here: conflict resolution for interpersonal issues and ethics review for research (although I realise perhaps that you are interested in original research about conflict resolution on wiki). I'm not convinced that "conflict resolution" is all that possible on wiki - maybe it is - can you think of some examples? At least in practice I've seen more escalation than resolution. On the other hand, cooperation also seems possible and it too seems to escalate. Which has me wondering about the prospects offered by problem-focused vs. solution-focused approaches on wiki. ... I've been listening to some interviews with w:Tim Flannery about his recent book Tim Flannery: Here on Earth (ABC Radio National), 23/9/2010 and Tim Flannery - reasons to be hopeful and finding parallels with the WV microcosm - and some encouragement for seeing wiki process as "half full" than "half empty". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is overwhelming evidence that conflict resolution is "beyond the scope" of WikiCulture. Indeed the very concept of academic peer review of outrageously false, defamatory, and vigorously disputed claims is "incoherent nonsense" to those who, like Jimbo Wales, arrogantly wield unchallengeable autocratic power over others. In 3 1/2 years, I have never seen a successful demonstration of a functional conflict resolution procedure in any WMF-sponsored project. I've successfully engaged in collaborative learning projects with a few people whom I met in Wikiversity, but those projects had to be undertaken outside of WMF, since it is "beyond the scope" of WMF to host collaborative learning projects here. —Moulton 12:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The IRC transcript with Jimbo and the WV community discussing the "Moulton situation" impeaches Moulton, heavily. Jimbo's comments were, there, mostly moderate, if occasionally clumsy (as later shown, Jimbo is, surprise, a human being). There is no doubt but that Moulton is a classic troll, that is, someone who deliberately provokes outraged response. He does so as part of his "research." In the transcript, Jimbo does mention "incoherent nonsense" as a reference to a specific piece of material. Moulton, then, expands that into a general rejection of the "very concept of academic peer review." This kind of hyperbole is one of the characteristics that takes Moulton entirely outside of academic discourse. It is poisonous to "collaborative learning," except with consenting participants. I consented to much abuse by Moulton in his collaboration at Cold fusion, but that was my personal choice. Moulton insists on this with others, who have not consented, and tries to rub their noses in his ... comments. --Abd 17:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you might find works like Solution-Focused Problem Solving: Finding Exceptions That Work of interest as well. -- darklama  13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton raises many interesting issues, but the way he raises them is radically disruptive. I had experience with dispute resolution on Wikipedia, and was able to manage to actually resolve disputes (not just make a decision about which side was right), in some cases. There are conditions where that isn't simple, and these typically involve a party or parties who are inflexible and believe that they are Right as Rain, and everyone else is Corrupt or a POV-pusher. There exist such people. When they are in power, the system is, to that extent, corrupt. When they are outside power, they will be so disruptive that those in power, even if initially inclined to be open and tolerant, will act to preserve order, thus confirming the impression that everyone else is corrupt.
  • We can see in the above IRC transcript that Moulton, for example, accuses Darklama of being an "autocratic jerk." Darklama is conservative and cautious, far from an autocrat. Current rhetoric from Moulton and JWS continues to accuse the Wikiversity custodial corps of being bullies waving banhammers. But ... Moulton, to a greater extent than I have ever seen, is bullying, revert warring on user talk pages and on the RCA page, daring me to go to meta, threatening to require massive range blocks if anyone tries to restrain him, and he hasn't been blocked. Who is "waving toy banhammers?" It's very clear: Moulton does not accept the right of communities to regulate their own process. I've been discussing this with him since mid-2010. Compromises were unacceptable. Clearest example of this, recently, is his revert warring to prevent my collapse of his rant about JoshuaZ, which takes a simple RCA request and turns it into a train wreck. He wasn't censored. I did redact the full name, because it was clear to me that he was using that name to taunt and provoke. Anyone could still see the name in history, and using the full name added nothing to any possible defensive character of his rant.
  • I'm often accused of creating walls of text. Ironically, Moulton repeats that charge frequently. But I have never objected to a collapse of my writing, though I've corrected biased collapse headers. When people have insisted on deleting my stuff, I've replaced it with a link to history and a neutral note.
  • Ottava left, but, unfortunately, he left, it seems, because he was being heavily harassed and it seemed nobody was willing to do enough about it. I've been considering leaving, myself. So far, there is no serious disruption at the resource level, but I've been inviting people interested in cold fusion to come and participate ("believers" and "skeptics"), and I'm worried that if a dispute arises, there will be no custodial corps to keep order. I strongly dislike bans, but recognize the need for order, which implies short-term, non-judgmental action, as with a sergeant-at-arms at any ordinary assembly, who will conduct a member out of the room until order is restored, but who has no authority to ban. "Banning" typically takes careful process, with full protections, and supermajority decision. Every democratic assembly or organization recognizes the importance of protection of minorities, it's crucial. But total laissez-faire anarchy in meetings also doesn't work. Compromises were developed centuries ago; wikis were started by people unfamiliar with classical deliberative process, which seemed inefficient to them.... I've been dealing with this for longer than Moulton, starting with the w:W.E.L.L in the 1980s.
  • My hope had been that Moulton would participate in developing "ethical guidelines," but he only seems to be interested in charging others with ethical violations, not developing consensus standards for behavior. In the KC mediation, we can see that he has a huge pile of resentments and accusations to dump. Fine. He dumped them. She may or may not read them. She was willing to respond to facilitated, focused questions or complaints. He can still cooperate with that. If he's really interested in conflict resolution, he might start with an apology. I'm not convinced he has the social skills to pull it off, but he could easily surprise me.
  • I will make no secret of it. If I had custodial tools, I'd be setting clear limits for Moulton. Because of recusal requirements -- as I understand recusal -- everything I did would be submitted to the community for review, and I could be overruled in a flash, as was the case with my block of Ottava and my later warnings of Ottava and JWS. This would be, in fact, acting as an ad hoc chair of a meeting would act.
  • (Wikis have confused and blended the role of chair and of sergeant-at-arms, creating conflicts of interest, but any custodian can act in such a way as to function properly as a chair while remaining the servant of the majority. Wikis have also failed to understand the importance of majority rule, which is obviously inferior to consensus; but my experience has been that failure to implement majority rule does not implement consensus, rather it sets up minority rule, and that's a whole study, on which we should have resources. The short of it is that to move beyond the majority/consensus dialectic, we need to use majority rule for temporary decisions, valuing consensus and working to achieve it. Using majority rule is functionally implemented through rules against revert warring for individuals, but would be better done with actual voting methods, defining "committees" with membership rules, and thus eligible voters. If Wikiversity can settle enough to be a safe place to invest more time, I'll be making proposals. It does not need to be complicated, and it can preserve wiki traditions.)
  • Moulton cites the mediation attempt of SBJ with KC as being proof that conflict resolution doesn't work. Actually, that, so far, proves that it could work if Moulton would actually sit down and listen as well as lecture. I was surprised to see KC respond at all, she had no obligation to. --Abd 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
When KC declared that my desired outcome was "incomprehensible" to her, it reminded me of the almost identical remark that Jimbo made to me in that above referenced IRC log, where he declared the very notion of peer review of his remarkable theses to be "incoherent nonsense." Autocrats reject academic peer review in favor of exercising direct control over others. It occurs to me that congenial and collegial academic communities live by peer review, not by autocratic edicts issued by those who declare Truth and Reconciliation and Restorative Justice to be "incomprehensible" and who declare academic peer review to be "incoherent nonsense." —Moulton 10:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I raise to your attention this issue, which remains festering and unresolved for over two years:

What is the Scope of Wikiversity?

Hillgentleman, what do you make of this?

# 13:57, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Archive" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:55, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Archive 8.9.14" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:54, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Ethic Models & Resource Links" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:53, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Meta-Wiki" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:53, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/MetaArchive" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:51, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/dnull1" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:50, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/Mu" ‎ (Beyond scope)
# 13:49, 15 December 2008 Darklama (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Moulton/NewYorkBrad's Principles" ‎ (Beyond scope)

Is it within the scope and remit of a custodian to arbitrarily and summarily delete the work of another scholar here, without notice, without discussion, and without due process? It occurs to me that Jimbo and Darklama are jointly establishing a disturbing precedent that does not bode well for an authentic learning community.

Moulton 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The above instance of an autocratic act — to unilaterally balete wholesale the work of another scholar — is an example of the kind of disruption that notably sundered and crippled Wikiversity two years ago. In particular, NewYorkBrad's Principles were the foundations of diligent jurisprudence that ArbCom employed in the case which Charles Ainsworth brought against FeloniousMonk. Why did Darklama arrogate to himself the autocratic power to balete that material?
Moulton 10:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Moulton/NewYorkBrad's Principles[edit]

James, for reasons that defy logic, Darklama deleted the cited subpage, which captured ArbCom's concise summary of the guiding principles for ethical and responsible custodial admins on WMF-sponsored projects. Can you think of any valid reason why NewYorkBrad's guiding principles for the diligent and conscientious discharge of one's official duties in the role of a responsible and accountable administrative custodian should be declared "beyond the scope" of the project, unworthy of study and review here, and summarily deleted from our data base? —Moulton 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Newyorkbrad seems OK to me. Maybe write up as a new resource (otherwise why not just link rather than copy?) or propose for undelete? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As you can see, James, I did import this material once before, and I've prompted those who were involved at the time to explain why that material is deemed "beyond the scope" of Wikiversity and why it remains inaccessible to those of us who are not privileged to read such intentionally deleted pages here. James, I need a responsible Custodian of your caliber (or of Leigh Blackall's caliber) to assist Darklama in understanding why those guiding principles are an important resource for him and for SBJ and other Custodians (or would-be Custodians) to be cognizant of. I am in no position to play the role of educator to those exercising inexplicably dictatorial political power here. Perhaps you or Leigh have the standing to play the role of a respected educator to custodians or would-be custodians like Darklama. —Moulton 13:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful edit.[edit]

At first I thought maybe I breached protocol - I saw the word "undo" and took it for a revert. Well the categories are a nice touch. I was thinking of making the course (1) more hands on and (2) more related to the case studies with which I am very familiar.

Um, question.

Is it a bad idea to presume people are going to actually obtain the books I think would make for a good course. The thought crossed my mind to set up two alternative tracks. One for people who will buy the book, probably not very many, but a purist project, and secondly a track for those who prefer to click and learn. Geofferybard 04:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Table love[edit]

Hi James,

Could you take a look at this table when you have a chance, and give it a border and background colour. Thanks Leighblackall 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Simplifying open communities[edit]

I found a recent entry at a blog about growing and maintaining open source communities. Thought you might be interested. -- darklama  22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, good stuff (from a skim read). Maybe we could 'wikify' some parts? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The copyright notice at the bottom says all rights reserved. If someone explains the topic in their own words, sure it could be wikified. -- darklama  21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep I thought about the textbook issue too.[edit]

My gut feeling is that it is a traffic killer to require dead tree.

But the Glantz book is too damned important.

One concern is that if I base the course on Google books everything goes to shit if Google changes it set up. Geofferybard 07:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

hello[edit]

hi there,

can you help me to create an article on wikipedia for me plz. i am a teenage singer from sri lanka and my fans are asking me to create an article facebook and twitter.I try my best to do that on wikipedia but unfortunately it has been deleted automatically.

I hope you can help me to create an article for me..

Lot's of thanks, Shanuka Shasthri UKsrilanka 12:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Augmented knowledge workshop[edit]

(This is a copy to your benefit from active links.)

Dear Jtneill

One of the variances is that Google is exceptionally keen on citations whereas Yahoo and the WMF are not. Google googles or orders its search result as per the citation count as a measure of worth.

In the mid 60s, w: Eugene Garfield started the w: Science Citation Index aiming to manage such academic citations mainly based on the mere facts or references, economically at the cost of minimal textuality or informativeness.

In the mid 70s, I in contrast started aiming to enhance them more informative in text or context, hence heavy bearing on the virtual virgin land of hypertext back then. Whether or not caused by my 1975 thesis at UCL, the sudden Internet-cum-hypertext rush followed very soon indeed. Whether or not acknowledged, frankly I am very sure and proud of my impact in fact. "The cruelest lies are often told in silence," R. L. Stevenson said. Then they may pay! ;)

As an extension of that study, I made two relative proposals in the WV Colloquium, as you may recall more or less of the details.

The original was aiming to create the "Cite:" namespace whose canonical w: metadata could be commonly transcluded into a number of citing pages. Pages in that namespace could include any text else than the mere metadata. To my great surprise in retrospect, you were already similarly though roughly transcluding such metadatas!

On the other hand, suppose that newbies cite your works, but as usual you hardly know where and why and how you are cited, however vital it may be for you to carry on.

As such, citations mainly make retrospective hence unilateral link or reference from the citing newbies to the cited oldies and goodies.

In contrast, my nextstep proposal was to make prospective (hence bilateral after all) reference possible, from the cited to the citing, simply but unusually by use of the Category: namespace.

Thus I meant nothing but the very Category:Augmented knowledge workshop as an example to show up the ideal nextstep for bilateral links that both my 1975 thesis and the 1990 World Wide Web project were commonly aiming to make for back and forth tracking on the bilateral network of academic works, citing and cited.

However, this way of using the Category: namespace may be too eccentric for the existing norm, however easy it may be to realize the ideal bilateral web of cites analogous to P-2-P that was also the original WWW view in contrast to the later client-2-server referencing fashion.

Two breakthroughs will do. One is to have a fully devoted wiki cite site, cf. the fully automatic w: CiteSeer. Another, perhaps the best, is for the wiki software to be able to declare a non-Category page specially to behave like a Category page.

Meanwhile, it is up to the WV policy to delete such unusual Category: pages at the cost of destroying part of my serious nextstep proposal.

Thank you for your detail e-mail. I am glad to hear from one of the best WV folks, but sorry to be late to reply. I used to be off WMF, where I'm supposed to be unwelcome, and lazy to check e-mail. I appreciate your sincere way of WV governance. Best regards. [KYPark 07:57, 7 March 2011]

-- KYPark [T] 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One of my pages has been deleted. I am creating pages that are in draft form. Is there a way to make my contributions private before publishing?

Some documents come from my own site. I am collecting resources in French and English. My work is in draft form. When I first started here I realized that I couldn't save anything without publishing. That was a concern for me. As everything is in draft form I would appreciate if you can restore the documents that were deleted. Opriter 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming, கலை to Kalaiarasy[edit]

Mainly, I'm a Tamil wiki contributor and I created the account with a username in Tamil. I had problem in using the Soxred tool 'cos of this Tamil name. Besides, I felt that it would be nice to have my username in English (that everyone can read), and thus asked for renaming in ta.wiki. My username was then changed from my old username கலை to my new username Kalaiarasy (that is my first name) in ta.wiki.
Even after the renaming, I faced a few problems and have been advised to change the name in all wikis which I'm linked to. So, I made a request in Wikimedia, Meta-wiki at Steward requests page. They helped me changing my name in wikis which don't have the local bureaucrats and asked me get the renaming locally in wikis which have the local bureaucrats. So, I'm making the requests in those wikis and the local bureaucrats complete the renaming procedure. I asked user:Cormaggio a few days ago. As I haven't get any response, I'm asking you now.
When I changed my old username கலை to my new username Kalaiarasy in my home wiki (that is ta.wiki), it autocreated the new account Kalairasy in some other wikis, including en.wikiversity too. You can see this here. I just want to confirm that both usernames are mine, and I now logged in as 'Kalaiarasy'. But I need the official renaming from கலை to Kalaiarasy. So please do the renaming in en.wikiversity and that would help me in a few things. If it's changed officially only, then I can merge the en:wikiquote too into my SUL as Kalaiarasy. See the links below too and you will find that both user names belong to me.

I wrote a message about my renaming in both my user pages. I wrote this in English as to inform all other wiki projects.

See these two pages too.

--Kalaiarasy 00:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Response from User:Knagy[edit]

Yes, these are copies of the Wikipedia articles. I am trying to create a series of articles to expand Wikiversity by creating articles and links on colleges and universities. You are welcome to helpd and/or edit these articles. Please do not vandalize though. Knagy 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity research[edit]

Hi Jt. I was wondering if we might clean up the http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Research_projects list, and use that page as a basis to begin a research and peer review project in Wikiversity? --Leighblackall 04:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And perhaps we create a sub or new category for "research papers, or publications" --Leighblackall 04:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, just found this. Also in need of some love http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research --Leighblackall 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

admin service requested[edit]

Your assistance is requested in determining the outcome of a username usurpation request. 173.155.15.139 06:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hidden categories[edit]

Hi JT. Do you know a way that I can add a category to a page, but hide it from the list of categories used on that page? I want to use the category:Leighblackall/PhD on pages, but don't want that page to show the category for obvious reasons. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Leighblackall/PhD Leighblackall 11:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You make a category show but not link to the category by putting a colon as the first character in it. For example [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] displays as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, but does not link this Talk page to the category! However, I think you want the reverse, to make the category link, but not display. It seems that this can be done, see MediaWiki Help. I haven't tried it. Enjoy. --Abd 17:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


About probationary custodianship[edit]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 3 has been sitting with mentorship acceptance, now, for two weeks. I see a couple of possibilities. When we had a long delay before, with your 'cratship, I went to meta to make the request. I think I shouldn't do that now, but you could do it, explaining that you aren't acting as 'crat because you are the mentor, of course. Another alternative would be to seek a different mentor, so you could act as 'crat. I'd be willing to ask, say at RCA. Or we could canvass the local 'crats on their Talk pages. SBJ has stated that he isn't comfortable with approving any custodianships until the policy is revised, but the policy, as it is, has not been changed.... Thanks. --Abd 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, agree these are all possibilities. I've added a request at RCA - [3] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Given SBJ's response, the simplest procedure now is a meta request, based on policy -- plus the lack of actual opposition, so far (which is, by policy, irrelevant, though obviously any 'crat should weigh it, as consensus can trump policy).
A core problem at Wikipedia is the supermajority election method for administrators and arbitrators. That's a method guaranteed to gradually result in an administrative body that does not represent the general community, but only -- disproportionally -- the largest "faction." Eventually, since we do have the same election method for permanent custodianship, we'll need to face this, it's not appropriate for an academic community. Supermajority election does work, short-term, when a community is strongly united, that's probably why it seemed a good idea. --Abd 16:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

James, I really think you should reconsider mentoring Abd again. To mentor him properly would really require a lot more attention than you gave last time, and while I could be wrong, I don't get the impression that you have quite that amount of time and attention to devote. Last time he had buttons, he felt compelled to use them frequently, and didn't seem to be either actively seeking advice from you or receiving it from you without solicitation.

He's also currently (or at least lately) conducting some sort of block evasion experiments on Wikipedia, as is being discussed here... were you aware of this? Note the comments about WV in general in that AN discussion, and consider the implications of "promoting" yet another very active user who is having troubles at WP (Ottava Rima is the other case where we did that). --SB_Johnny talk 00:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SBJ, can you point to examples of problematic tool usage by me? Seems to me that I was faced with situations that you were neglecting, I acted -- minimally and with full consultation of the community -- and you got upset, reversed my action, and then later came to the similar conclusions. But maybe that's just my selective memory! We could look at it more carefully, if that's what you'd like. I did do a review of my first probationary period at the end of it, I suppose I could do the same for the second. Is it needed?
As to "block evasion experiments," they are similar to what was done here with Thekohser, though without local cooperation, as Thekohser had here (with me, I was a custodian then). They are not being coordinated here, there is no incitement to disruption, just documentation of what I'd be doing anyway, and there isn't anything happening recently. The documentation page is under RfD, but consensus so far is to keep it. I don't really care that much, I'll move it if it becomes a problem here. --Abd 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, SBJ. Appreciate your advice. I would much prefer that someone else offers to mentor in this situation but if no-one offers, I offer. I certainly don't mean harm and maybe I'm naive. I'm also aware that I may have a somewhat liberal attitude to custodianship. Basically, here's how it looks to me from here: I have appreciated that Abd on the previous two occasions did not undertake an innocuous probationary period and then reveal some other nature later once he was a full custodian - at least it seemed WYSIWIG. On both occasions there were some significant other influences, particularly Ottava Rima. I'm not sure that anyone knew the best way (if there is such a thing) to handle the challenges. Abd had a go as did others. I was reasonably content on both previous occasions to let the mentor decide whether to nominate at the end of a probationary period and if so, to then let the community decide. Wikilawyering is not really my thing, but I wasn't convinced that policy had been followed on either occasions. Being more interested in moving forward, I guess I give Abd the benefit of the doubt and suggest he deserves another chance. If its a bad idea (I don't know if it is or isn't), then I'm happy to allow the customary probationary custodianship process will lead to an outcome of either the mentor not nominating or the community deciding against. At this stage, I know nothing pretty much nothing about Abd's Wikipedia situation.
I also (think I) understand that probably the key policy issue that arose out of the Abd2 probation was that perhaps it would be better if the community vetted candidates before probation. I'm happy to progress discussion about that if you think that could be a better way forward? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree: Ottava's approach to certain issues certainly made things complicated. However, if you're not familiar with the WP situation, I'm even less comfortable with you mentoring him, because he carries some baggage (and so is not WYSIWYG if you don't know his background). --SB_Johnny talk 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Another interesting idea I heard at the time was to create separate roles for each of the tools. This could help to move a bottleneck e.g., perhaps there are some tools the community is comfortable with for a candidate and perhaps there are some tools they aren't. Are roles global on WMF wikis or can they be project-customised? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we customized them a bit at WB, though I am unfamiliar with the technical details. I am pretty sure there are some software limitations in place, but I think their maybe some flexibility. I will look back at the vote again and try to understand. Alternatively ask Darklama, he is pretty saavy at the Mediawiki stuff. Thenub314 03:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Everything seen at Special:ListGroupRights can be customized. You don't have all the groups seen at b:Special:ListGroupRights for instance and we also renamed some in the interface (just like you renamed administrators to custodians). You can create a new user group just for probationary custodians with a subset of the rights a standard custodian would have. For instance, you could say that the probationary custodian group should have everything except unblockself. Make sure that bureaucrats can remove the probationary custodian flag, though (not possible for standard custodian flag). Adrignola 13:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For all of you who broached the topic, I commented a while ago about a usergroup change here. It's simply a matter of adding a couple lines to the Localsettings.php file, and would only take about 1 minute of the devs' time ;-). If we were able to quickly and quietly remove the tools in a no-drama fashion (as opposed to hopping off to meta and/or having a Community Review), I'd feel far more comfortable giving someone more leeway. --SB_Johnny talk 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, SBJ. However, short of that, "hopping off to meta," if the circumstances are clear, is truly easy, and meta is usually no-drama, meta admins, if challenged on a removal of tools, will simply say, "any local crat can fix this, get it done there." The Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement should really cover it, without requiring actual tool removal, in a very flexible way. Have you looked at that? --Abd 15:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your advice, I do appreciate it. I realise that I haven't commented or contributed to the underway Wikiversity:Community Review/Custodianship process yet. So, I will think more about it, contribute there, and encourage others concerned about probationary custodianship to do so too. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I commented there - thanks for the pointer.  :-) SJ+ 19:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been a month[edit]

We are out of process, for sure. There has been no decision to change policy. But I do not believe that policy requires any specific 'crat to act. So how to move forward? There are several options. I could attempt to find another custodian mentor, and if you consented, then you could push the button as a 'crat. We could go to meta, as mentioned previously. We could let the request sit, or abandon it, but I see stuff every day where I could help, some of it I set up requests for, but that takes much more work, in some cases, than just pushing a button. I set up the standard mentorship agreement so that there should really be no worry about abuse, true abuse could be quickly handled under that agrhttp://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtneill&action=edit&section=neweement. (I had particular consents or agreements in effect before, but they were not used, the disruptive process that came down the beginning of this year could easily have been avoided.) So .... what do you think? I don't want to solicit a new mentor unless you think it's a decent idea. --Abd 22:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at some sort of hiatus with custodianship and your current request. Do feel free to find another mentor. As I've said, I'm willing to mentor if no-one else is willing, but wouldn't also act as bureaucrat if I was a mentor. More generally, I am in favour of reforming the permissions system as per my comments on Wikiversity:Community Review/Custodianship process#Comment by Jtneill. What do you think about those ideas? Please note, I probably won't be around much over the next fortnight (currently on leave). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I will respond there. I will seek another mentor, as one possible solution. My proposed standard stop agreement effectively makes the entire custodial corps into my mentors, in a sense, but, quickly: I agree that a 'crat should not be sole mentor and implementing 'crat, absent a complete lack of alternatives, which isn't where we are at, at this point. Thanks. --Abd 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Draicone has volunteered to serve as mentor, are you willing to push the button? Thanks. --Abd 12:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you be my mentor for Custodianship?[edit]

I have now been active on Wikiversity, and feel I have made some useful contributions. I think it would be useful if I became a Custodian. Would you be prepared to act as my mentor?Leutha 11:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jt, I'm a bit concerned about this user, in the matter of edit summaries. See the user's response to my comments on his user talk page. Comments are optional, but they are much more important for custodians, generally. I'm concerned because all the user has done is to acknowledge the optional part, and not the desirability part. Note that the edit here on this page did not have any accurate summary, but only the automatic summary from the previous section, so someone following recent changes or his contributions or your Talk page won't have a clue. This is typical. The prior discussion on this, on his talk page, in 2010, indicated that he wished to avoid attention, and was otherwise worrisome. I'd suggest you ask him about this before going ahead. --Abd 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Tx, Abd, I've added some comment about edit summaries on Leutha's talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. Thanks. Looks good. Nice to know about that template. --Abd 12:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Leutha's response was now excellent, he's resolved my concerns by that. --Abd 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Custodian[edit]

Thanks for actioning Abd's probationary custodianship. --Draicone (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's going swimmingly with Draicone, he's been critiquing my work by email, and we have had productive conversations. Just to let you know. Thanks for your help. I'm getting a powerful sense of the cogs starting to turn with Wikiversity, that we may be arising from long-standing doldrums and a kind of paralysis. Or maybe I'm just sensing my own state. --Abd 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Abd/Interview[edit]

JT, for an outside class assignment, I've started an Interview page and am specifically inviting you to comment there, if you have time. Thanks, it could really help me. (I'm doing live interviews with people from other face-to-face and telephone contact communities, but my actual class project is here, on Wikiversity, Wikiversity:Delegable proxy.)

I have also nominated you as my proxy for that project, see Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table, I'd be honored if you would accept, it carries no special obligations, just be yourself! And thanks for considering that as well. --Abd 16:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If you don't wish to accept the proxy, please let me know. The only obligation involved would be diffuse: to communicate with me if you become aware of something happening that you think I should know about, but I haven't participated. Accepting a proxy consents to communication from the client, as well. And I wouldn't advise accepting a proxy from someone you consider disruptive; if someone should become disruptive, withdrawing the proxy is possible at any time, no reason need be given. Accepting a proxy does, in a way, validate the "client" as being somehow legitimate. I've only accepted proxies when I confirmed, off-wiki, that these were real people likely to be productive users, at least reasonably so. Thanks.
  • (The intended immediate application of Wikiversity:Delegable proxy is with the Wikiversity:Assembly, which I'll be working on this week. But DP has other applications as well. It documents relationships of mutual trust, which will have, I hope it will become apparent, numerous positive effects.) --Abd 16:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As to the interview, I know you are busy, but it would really help me if you could respond, even a little. I've set up a subpage system to make it simpler for users to respond and I created User:Abd/Interview/Jtneill, hoping you will find some time to respond. Thanks for whatever you can do. What I'm looking for is not the "truth" about me, in myself, but rather how I "occur" to others. Nobody specifically invited to comment will be held responsible for any errors or "incivility" in the responses, not that I'd expect you to be uncivil, far from it! --Abd 17:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Abd - I am interested, just flat-tack. I like the potential here for "360-degree peer feedback" with the interview - I've dropped a couple of notes in there - will try to expand if you like. Note sure yet about the proxy/assembly. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for what you did, more would be nice, yes, I'd like it. As to proxy/assembly, no rush! --Abd 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Modified the insturctions for signup.[edit]

If it can go wrong, it will. With, I hope, your permission, I've modified the instructions for signup for Motivation and emotion/Participants. The best place to have clear instructions, including wikitext to copy, I have found, is as a comment in the wikitext. Then you just have to get the user to see the comment! To make it even more foolproof, The participants page should have a section preceding the actual participants list, and the instructions would then ask the user to click on the list section edit link, not the whole page link. The participants list would then be transcluded as a section, not as the full page. However, is section transclusion enabled here? I'll check.

I think we can develop a standard procedure for this, which can then be substituted with no more work by anyone establishing a participant list. You've been bringing in many new Wikiversitans, and it looks to me that with the existing instructions, more than maybe a fourth of them still get it wrong the first time. I think we should aim for 100% success. --Abd 16:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, section inclusion doesn't work. However, any part of a page may be defined as an exclusive part to be included in transclusion, with all other parts not being displayed, using onlyinclude and /onlyinclude tags surrounding the text. Live and learn. This could be the way to use a participants section cleanly. The other way, of course, is what you are already doing, to exclude other sections using noinclude tag(s). --Abd 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. Those changes seem fine, but I've switched for now back to the rather analog way of listing the slots for the 50 or so signups to go. There are teaching each other, too, and I am demo-ing with them. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I did what I did because that "rather analog way," simple as it seems, can be interpreted several different ways, and a fair number of sign-ups needed to be fixed. What do they replace with "four squiggles?" And where is it? Etc. Yeah, the instructions I gave were a bit longer, but ... I suspect they were clearer. Anyway, your course, it's obviously up to you!
In your case, you know roughly how many sign-ups to expect. That's not true in the general case, of course. --Abd 04:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to register for the Wikiversity Assembly[edit]

Democracy.gif
  • The Wikiversity:Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
  • I invite you to register for the Wikiversity:Assembly by adding your user name to the Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table.
  • Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy[edit]

  • When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."
  • I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.
  • If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.

Comments[edit]

Thought you should see this. I'll be issuing no more than a few of these invitations per day and, of course, others may issue invitations. Any suggestions or ideas are welcome. --Abd 19:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming requests open[edit]

I've reviewed the standing renaming requests at WV:Changing username#User_rename_requests and have commented with recommendations, for all but one of them. I'm notifying all three active 'crats of this, because simple renaming requests should not be delayed. I have not yet reviewed the usurpation requests. Thanks. --Abd 18:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. Will try to look when I can, but flat out ATM. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed all requests and made recommendations, in one or two instances I requested information from a user. I provided evidence so anything can be checked quickly. You are the only 'crat who responded. Some of these users have waited for many months. I'd say we have a Situation. If you can't attend to this (and that's easily understandable), I could go to meta and ask for assistance. A brief note here encouraging me to do that could help. I won't rush off immediately, and maybe SBJ or Sebmol, the other two I notified, will respond. --Abd 02:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

meta:Wikicite[edit]

Thank you so much for guiding me there to my great pleasure.  KYPark [T] 13:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

irregular page creation.[edit]

[4]. IP created page with initials "RMB." I've been asked, now, twice, to delete this page.[5][6] Do you want to keep this page? My guess is that the IP is a student (the IP is in the range of some of your students) or wants to be a student in your course. --Abd 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also this:[7]. This is related to User:RMB, who hasn't formally signed up to participate. Should I let him know or would you prefer to do that? --Abd 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

usurp[edit]

Hi dear. Plz check and confirm My request in this page.Thanks--Pesare amol 20:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See the section above on Renaming requests. Jt, you are the only 'crat who even responded to my requests. Stewards are starting to say, when they decline to do renaming requests because of the existence of "active" local 'crats, that the communities should remove the 'crats. They could then handle them. The problem is that you aren't inactive, you have edits! Same with SBJ. It seems that they will handle requests if the crats say that, for some reason, they won't be available for an extended period. On the other hand, it should not take long to handle the outstanding requests, I tried to make it easy. If templates are built for requests so that everything is handled almost automatically, I could be even more effective in clerking the page. I'll be happy to work on that. --21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - in the middle of moving house - I can't do much for at least the next week unless really urgent. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I got that one bebe :-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the user was IRC'ing stewards.... That was the most recent of many requests, seven of which look ready-to-go (I hope I did all the research), the oldest is a usurpation from February, you'd emailed the account being usurped.... I don't think anyone is going to die if their account isn't renamed. But .... --Abd 00:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, the change username and usurp requests are very backlogged. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Abd[edit]

Please see. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Closures needed[edit]

Hi James. I have offered to mentor a new arrival. Are you available for button pushing?

Also, Abd's confirmation is on it's 5th day now. I've left a note for Mike on that (and about S Larctia), but I'm too involved to close and you probably are as well due to the history. If Mike's not available, we could ping Cormac and/or do some sort of 'crat chat on the issue.

Thanks! --SB_Johnny talk 11:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SBJ - will try to take a look. Am on limited net access ATM due to moving house. Agree if someone uninvolved could close on Abd's nomination that would be preferred from my POV. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Standard error[edit]

Hi. Just noticed, we have two learning resources on standard error, Standard error and Standard error (statistics). I feel that this duplication is unnecessary, but I'm unsure which one should be deleted/redirected. As you created them, have you any suggestions ? Thanks. --S Larctia 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, S Larctia. I've merged the content and done a redirect. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

acceptable backlinking on posts[edit]

Good day,

I created a post 'wireless weather stations' and found it to be removed. I've been trying to discover what is the best and acceptable method of leaving information material on wiki's, such as your own, while not being spammy. To be honest, yes, for the effort, I'd like to have a link back to my site. I feel that it is an acceptable trade. But what is the acceptable parameters to do this please?

Frank --Fthoms137 15:48, 10 October 2011, sig added by Abd 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll address this on User talk:Fthomas137. I'll check the page out and I assume that you will allow me to undelete if appropriate (I have not yet looked at the deleted page). --Abd 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

Hi James, Following on from today's lecture, I'd like to know how to alter the colour in the drop down boxes on my text book page on Emotional Intelligence. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Motivation_and_emotion/Book/Emotional_intelligence

Many thanks,Ray 58.169.42.158 06:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Leutha[edit]

Shouldn't we be moving to the next phase here? ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 12:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

- Yep, sorry, it's in the long-overdue task pile - there's been relatively little activity from Leutha, so I'm not inclined to nominate for custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Colour change[edit]

Many thanks for your help James. Cheers Ray U112052 22:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity name vs other wiki domains (wikipedia, wikicommons, etc.)[edit]

Hi James

As I mentioned earlier, my user name for wikiversity doesn't transfer to wikipedia or wikicommons so I had to create a new id (used psychopoesie like twitter). Not sure if I should worry about this now or wait till I finish my book chapter. Advice? --Jeanette 08:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re wikiversity name vs other wiki domains (wikipedia, wikicommons, etc.)
Would prefer to unify under Jeanette user name if possible. Can't say how far I will go into wikiland at this point but I'd prefer it to psychopoesie. Though I'm happy enough with psychopoesie on twitter & that would be my next choice (doubt anyone else has it on wikiversity tho could be surprised!). What do I have to do to start usurpation? Next stop world domination. Smiley.svg --Jeanette 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: wikiversity name vs other wiki domains (wikipedia, wikicommons, etc.)
Just checking - went to Commons:Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests but it said that page didn't exit. Is it okay to just create a page for this? J

Problems with my page[edit]

Hi James,

Jude here. Something odd is happening with my page. The last box has become super wide and is unreadable. Have no idea how I managed to make that happen. Are you able to fix it please?

Also, can you please paste a table example on my page that I can experiement with? I would also like to add a small side box to place a small example in. Is it possible to paste an example of that too please?

And lastly, my picture of the parts of the elephant is now missing its edit button,so i cant move it around my page anymore. Any suggestions?

thanks in advance, Jude Jay-bird 06:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed working title[edit]

Hi James, thanks for you ongoing help with my page, I appreciate it.

what do you think of changing my page title to "Life challenges: opportunites for meaning and growth" or "Life challenges: how does meaning help to promote growth?" or, do you have a better suggestion?

thanks,Jude Jay-bird 06:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi James, Been thinking some more about my page name proposal, & am not satisfied with my previous sugggestions. I feel that "life challenges" is too 'Pollyanna'for some of the issues that this encompasses, so I would prefer:

"Growth through adversity: why meaning mattters".

What do you think?

Jude

Username changing[edit]

Hi, can you please perform this request for me? it's about a week that I requested. Thanks beforehand. MehranVB 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Table manners[edit]

Hi James
The table in my chapter shame will not play nice. It won't stay where I've put it (it shows up at the bottom of the page with all the photos). & I can't make the bottom row merge (it's where I've placed the acknowledgement). I've just used a basic table but would like the option to make it prettier later. So would help to know how to do these 2 things. Just in case it saves you flipping to the page itself - I've copied the table out below. Jeanette 09:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dimension Shame Guilt
Object of negative evaluation The global self Specific behaviour
Direction of attentional focus and focus of distress Inward, toward the self Outward, towards relationship partners
Phenomenology Feeling "small" and inferior, helpless, powerless, feeling exposed Tension, regret, remorse, other-oriented concern
Action tendencies Avoid, hide, withdraw, escape, isolate, a desire to disappear Approach, amend, repair, confess, apologize
Accompanying emotions Anger, anxiety, (self-)disgust; typically more painful Sorrow, empathy; typically less painful
Centrality of public exposure High Low
Attributional pattern Internal, stable, global,uncontrollable Internal, unstable, specific, controllable
Evolutionary origins Evolved as part of the rank system Evolved as part of the caring system
Function Repair reputation Repair damaged relationship
Adapted from Kim, Thibodeau & Jorgenson (2011)
re: Table manners
Thanks for the fix. All good now. Also appreciated the tip re the Kalat & Shiota book - I've borrowed it. Regards J

Poing[edit]

I think this is ready for buttonage: Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Ruy Pugliesi‎, if you get a moment. --SB_Johnny talk 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Jtneill. Sorry for bothering you, but is there something else I am supposed to do there? Regards, Ruy Pugliesi 23:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you ;) Ruy Pugliesi 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright of File:Motivation and Emotion - Lecture 08 - Aspects of emotion 2011 6slidesperpage.pdf?[edit]

Icon no license.svg
Question copyright.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Motivation and Emotion - Lecture 08 - Aspects of emotion 2011 6slidesperpage.pdf, but:
1.svg The file needs some copyright information soon to stay at Wikiversity. Please place {{information}} on the file page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about using files because of copyright law.
2.svg Who owns the rights to this file? Usually this is the work's creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Only the person or company who owns the rights can give permission to use this file freely.
3.svg What are the terms for using this file? Wikiversity accepts open content, public domain, and fair use works (see Wikiversity's Copyright policy). You can place a {{copyright template}} on the file page to signify the copyright terms.
4.svg Please remember to do this for any other files you have uploaded or will upload. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Thenub314 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Something messed up this template on your talk page, but I am not sure what or why.... Thenub314 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The same comments apply to:
Thank-you for picking this up and letting me know. I've fixed it and checked/fixed all Motivation and emotion/Lectures slide handout pages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments[edit]

Hi James, thanks for your comments and suggestions on my chapter on peer infuence. It's very useful as I move towards my final version for submission! ShaunaB 23:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GedawyBot[edit]

Hi sir. I made a request for bot flag, I hope you approve it. Thanks..--محمد الجداوي 13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there problems?--محمد الجداوي 09:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for the bot request. My apologies for a slow response. I've commented: Wikiversity:Bots/Status. Note that I am an en.wv bureaucrat but am novice with regard to bots, so will be guided very much by community consensus in approving/not approving. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Confused[edit]

Really confused - can you shed some light on the temporary page of my book chapter??????????? which one am I using? Can I have some comments regarding the content as well please? Margaret

Emotional intelligence[edit]

Hi James,

I've just noticed a displkay problem on my page on Emotional Intelligence http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Motivation_and_emotion/Book/Emotional_intelligence

The External Links section at the very end is not displaying correctly, even though it looks OK in edit mode. Is there something I'm overlooking?

Also, grateful for any overall comments you might have as I will be finalising the chapter tomorrow.

Cheers,

RayU112052 03:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks James..Otherwise looking OK? Ray U112052 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help[edit]

Hi James

Thanks for all the help with the wiki. I did enjoy it. Jeanette 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing service acknoledgement[edit]

Thank you for your kind editing/moving of my writing 'My Wife' to my own space. Please archive it. Regards!

usurp User:Joy[edit]

Can you please have a look at Wikiversity:Changing username#Joy-temporary → Joy? --Joy-temporary 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an important issue. See this discussion at meta, involving this very user, showing the damage from refusing to respond to legit usurpation requests. I set up all the older rename and usurpation requests for ready action, verifying the necessary details after reviewing procedure. However, if it's all going to be useless, I'm not going to continue clerking that page. If you cannot handle these requests, Jtneill -- and SBJ has declined or worse, in the past -- please say so and someone can make a request at meta, citing discussions here. --Abd 14:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
YesY Done by SBJ. --Abd 15:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Tx Abd & SBJ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Multimedia issue[edit]

Hi James. When I downloaded by screencast from screenr it has cut off almost all of the bottom line of my presentation - I'm not sure if this is a screenr thing, or a quicktime/iMovie/Mac thing. Will I lose marks for this? I tried everything in iMovie to fix it... ShaunaB 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah not to worry - I've adjusted some settings and sorted it out. I understand we don't have the submit a downloadable version, I've just downloaded it to do some trimming and include some music (the quality was terrible out of the laptop speakers on the screens recording). I'll be uploading to YouTube once I've edited. Thanks for your help! ShaunaB 21:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nature chapter: just noticed some changes[edit]

Hi James, I just noticed the changes you made on my page. I did not include the completion status and I used a different link to the chapter overview because it was over the word limit if I included them. Please take this into consideration when you mark the assignment. I also didn't like it being pink. Noodles&Wedges 09:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta request[edit]

Hi James. Given the sudden moves this morning, I made an emergency request at meta vis-a-vis Abd. Details here.

I think at this point I'd like to see him clearly pass an RfC discussion before returning the buttons... do you agree? --SB_Johnny talk 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is standard SBJ opinion. Anyone can file an RfC. He misrepresented the situation at meta. They didn't buy it, so far. Jtneill, if you believe that my continued use of tools, with the vast majority of actions being non-controversial, is a hazard to WV, please do ask me to resign, I will. However, here, on the unblock issue, I'm standing for policy, and a very important one, and my action was easily undone. (And now it's visible why I opposed that custodianship, and why others opposed.) The page deletion issue would also be easily undone if any custodian wants to push for that page standing as-is, in my user space. If the page is returned to WV space, I'd reverse my actions. I just don't think SBJ can have his cake and eat it too, i.e., the idea that this page is not important, it's just my own opinion, and so belongs in my user space, whereas the actual evidence -- and linkage of the page, showed the opposite. SBJ fabricated a "consensus" on this move, which could be discussed if necessary. What, again, was the emergency? As to blocking, there isn't a community consensus to block, and there is clear policy about what's normal without a special consensus, with ample precedents.
In any case, I remain your mentee, and I do request consideration of the sheer volume of routine maintenance I've done, compared to how easy it is to reverse a couple of actions out of hundreds or thousands. Thanks. --Abd 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
RfC = "Request for Custodianship". Funny names around here ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
SBJ, we had a compromise, apparently you are abandoning it. My CC did not close with failure, it closed with a compromise to allow continued benefit to Wikiversity. Otherwise it would have been quite improper for SBJ to close, because of his high involvement. However, policy allows that any custodian who "fails" PC may continue with a mentor, so the close was not a difficult one. However, I do see RfCs coming. For me, for you, and for Poetlister, and we have one open on ban policy. It really should be on block policy. They are distinct, the issues are separate. And I don't have time for this now and over the coming weeks, I believe. --Abd 18:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have acted on a false premise. Just because it might not be important enough to be in Wikiversity space, doesn't make it unimportant. -- darklama  18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - I've replied here [8] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I think now would be a good time (regardless of what meta decides). I know you're busy, but would you be willing to start a new RfC nomination? A recommendation against would be just as valid as a recommendation for, I think. After this morning's actions (or whatever time of day that was for you), I suspect I'm not the only one wondering when the other shoe will drop, which is never a good feeling. --SB_Johnny talk 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
His tools have been removed by the stewards, on my request. I still think a re-hash of the discussion would be a good thing. --SB_Johnny talk 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates - I've re-opened the Abd3 full custodian discussion[9] - gotten run, but this should also go into sitenotice etc. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think we need a "do-over"... maybe a new page, and definitely a new recommendation from the mentor :-). --SB_Johnny talk 00:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I've tidied that page a little by archiving the earlier discussion, but leaving it there for reference. The original recommendation from Draicone (mentor on wiki-break) I think still stands, but we can have a fresh round of discussion now that some time has passed, hopefully leading to a clearer consensus towards either full custodianship or not. Is this OK with you? If not, feel free to tweak. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the section header to make it easier to follow, but otherwise looks good to me :-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review SBJ's action at meta and remedy the damage[edit]

[10]. SBJ requested emergency desysop at meta. When this appeared unlikely to succeed, SBJ then misrepresented the situation, by alleging that "we have a "temporary" sysop who has been acting outside of the terms he agreed to."

Not one example of acting outside those terms has even been alleged, not to mention the whole series of actions implied by his language. I did, transiently, attempt to change the terms, but never violated them. The Standard Stop Agreement provides that I can be immediately desysopped if I act contrary to a "stop order" from any custodian. Any custodian, including SBJ, could have, on their own discretion, issued a stop order preventing me from acting with tools, either generally or specifically, and if I had then violated the order, "emergency desysop" would have been allowed, not only by SBJ, but by any user upon presentation of the evidence.

Instead, SBJ is proceeding entirely outside of policy, as he did with the block of Poetlister, bypassing community process. The implication is that SBJ may act without finding consensus, but others cannot. That's ownership of the wiki. If there were some clear and present danger, this would be allowed. But there was not. I don't wheel-war, but if I did, standard stop was available. The danger, then, would be one or at most a handful of errors to reverse. There would have been none, the desysop prevented no problematic actions. I had no plans or occasion to use tools in any controversial way. Absolutely, I would not have unblocked Poetlister1 again. That would have been wheel-warring!

Had I wheel-warred, reversing the action of any custodian, in order to re-stablish a state that I had myself created, undoing the work of a permanent custodian, this could have been considered an implicit violation of the Standard Stop Agreement, even without a stop order. But to take an action based on policy, after discussion -- and this was discussed with SBJ -- is not wheel-warring, especially an unblock action. It's a disagreement. If a desysop can be based solely on a single disagreement with a bureaucrat, who then can misrepresent the situation at meta in order to get action, we have no way for a continued community consensus to be established. It all becomes a matter of personal power.

Jt, I'm asking you to restore the bit, as a restoration of what policy requires, and what was always considered necessary, a CR before removal, with the ultimate result being up to the community. I know you are involved, but so is everyone, most especially SBJ, who has long waited for an opportunity to do what he did.

The wiki will not collapse without my use of tools, and I'm busy at this time anyway. However, a unilateral desysop, bypassing our policies, without an emergency? That's not acceptable. It is not acceptable even if a few users support it, consensus is required for desysop. We have Custodian Feedback and Community Review to avoid this kind of situation, and I proposed and agreed to Standard Stop to allow the community of custodians to handle possible dangerous situations, immediately, without disruption or undue cries of "emergency."

SBJ knows that what might be called his faction may be able to prevent consensus from forming, and what he's asserting is the right to personally determine affairs without consensus and in contradiction to policy. If you look at the voting in my CC, the first pass, and the analysis on the Talk page, you can see what's happening. A similar situation on Wikipedia prevented effective confrontation of a major faction (roughly two dozen editors, including a few administrators) for years, the faction could muster enough votes in any discussion to prevent a consensus against even the most abusive administrator, and they could trivially prevent anyone likely to confront their position from ever gaining administrator status, and the result was years of disruption, major ongoing damage, legions of unnecessarily or even abusively blocked users and vast sock farms (because a percentage of abused users do get mad and do get even), not to mention damaged neutrality, and it's still not over.

I asked SBJ to restore the bit.[11] He did not consent. --Abd 17:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd, for calling it you see it.
Re: sysop tools request.I guess there are many paths ahead - and I'm not sure which ones we are or should be heading down, but in general I'm reluctant to engage in potentially provocative admin actions without evidence of community consensus one way or another. So, I'm not looking to further escalate the drama here by switching your sysop tools on until the community has had a good chance to voice their view about whether they want that to happen or not.
Re: SB_Johnny's claims in his meta request to have your sysop tools removed. For now, I think following that up on SBJ's talk page is possibly one way forward (I see a conversation is underway).
Re: Vote-stacking. I appreciate the warning - to the extent that this may occur on en.wv, then we should be endeavouring to shine light upon it.
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of vote-stacking here. That refers to socking to increase votes on the side of a sock master. Rather, a problem is participation bias, which is intrinsic to wikis, which can be difficult to handle, and which can be exacerbated by canvassing. If decisions were made by arguments, as is often claimed, then canvassing (and even socking) would not be a problem, it's only when numbers count that a problem arises. (And with decision-by-argument, canvassing would actually be valuable, soliciting broader comment and thus deeper argument, potentially. WV:Assembly process will *encourage* certain kinds of canvassing, there, making increasing vote counts not necessary, since the Assembly will not make decisions by vote, per se. It's not a decision-making body, it merely reports.)
The discussion on SBJ talk was ended, as far as I could see. It is not my intention to hound anyone by tendentious argument, especially not on their talk page. If I have time, the way forward with my disputes with SBJ is Custodian Feedback, next step. I'm not sure I have time. In a way, not having tools now removes from me the temptation to do RCP and review speedy deletion requests, etc. That's the result of the desysopping, simple. There are others who can do that. --Abd 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Subpages transcluded into a policy page[edit]

[12] made me notice that sections of the Custodianship policy page are transcluded from small subpages. This then allows editing to the policy that will not show up for those watching the policy. Would you mind if I move the subpage content back to the policy page, so that it's clear someone is editing a policy page? That can be important. Thanks. --Abd 17:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea (to not have it as transcluded so that changes to policy can be more easily tracked). It looks the reason I transcluded this was to allow re-use in this {{Probationary custodian evaluation}} which was designed for transclusion at the start of evaluation periods - although it hasn't been used much in part because I guess doing so is somewhat redundant, but was hoping to more clear/communicative about the discussion period. Thoughts? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks also for fixing the five days to 7+ days. I believe we had consensus on that (at least Darklama and I!). I only reverted the entire Darklama change because I was short on time, I assumed that it would all come out in the wash, i.e., discussion and cooperation, Darklama had been doing other good work on policy. --Abd 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your transwiki of collapse templates[edit]

Broke our collapse process. I noticed this on Wikiversity talk:Custodianship, drove me nuts trying to find what I assumed was my former, unnoticed error, then it occurred to me that maybe the templates had changed, I checked, and behold! They had. I just demonstrated it with a sandbox edit. Your imports overwrote the existing files (?), so I can't just undo it. These templates can be arcane as hell, my guess is that the new versions incorporate other templates or the like that aren't present here, or that are different here. I'll look a little more and if I don't quickly find the problem, I'll go to RCA. Thanks. --Abd 17:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I looked at your contributions and see that you made many template imports yesterday, and at least one of them I recognize as a template used in the collapse template. It's looking like the history of a file turns into a mess, with an import. Looks like the old history is still there, but when moving from diff to diff, the edits are out of date order. This could be a massive mess, I'll go to RCA immediately instead of later. --Abd 17:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the collapse problem with [13], restoring an old version. There might be other problems. Obviously, something here is different than on Wikipedia. --Abd 18:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi! Thanks for adding the link, and your other assists - it seems like this is a bigger project than I thought it would be, and links will, I think, help a lot if anyone ends up using the material. :) - Bilby 06:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback on the Shame chapter[edit]

Hi James
Really appreciate the feedback on the shame chapter. It was a really challenging subject. Sorry it was so hard to extract the pearl of wisdom. Think I might have had some trouble as well. Really like what you did end up writing for that. Thanks for spending the time to make some really great suggestions. Regards Jeanette 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from newbie[edit]

Thanks for your assistance. My lack of etiquette was not intentional; but there is a lot to be learned in this new activity. Please keep me posted when you catch more of my blunders. I propose to collect and catalog them as "The Piman's Blunders". Ray Calvin Baker 05:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I think you are the second actual person I have heard from since I started my user page.

Thank you from newbie[edit]

Thanks for your assistance. My lack of etiquette was not intentional; but there is a lot to be learned in this new activity. Please keep me posted when you catch more of my blunders. I propose to collect and catalog them as "The Piman's Blunders". Ray Calvin Baker 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I think you are the second actual person I have heard from since I started my user page.

I appreciate your welcome. - Sidelight12 Talk 12:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Probationary custodianship[edit]

After my little drama last month, I'd like to help out with administrative tasks again, particularly copyright clean-up. I asked SBJ to re-mentor me, but while he'd like me to be a custodian, he'd rather someone else mentored me for round 2. Would you consider taking me on ? I asked Thenub314, and he suggested you. Thanks. --Simone 11:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Interest[edit]

I have received your message. I will reply what my plan is on my active projects. I will reply this by email before Christmas and we are going to get started. Thanks --Katarighe 21:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually active in these projects Simple English Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Commons and Incubator to fight for vandalism and spamming. Will you able to mentor me here to get better results, I would like to do so. --Katarighe 22:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Emotional Intelligence- Thanks[edit]

Hello James,

Just read your kind comments on my multi-media presentation on Emotional Intelligence. Very encouraging. Oops on not giving the presentation public domain authorisation. Bugger! There's always something ;-)Impatient now to discover my final marks. Really enjoyed this subject. It's up there with Psychopathology and Physiological as my favourites to date. Ray V. U112052 07:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)