To get started, you may
You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Adambro 13:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Cataract sentence[edit source]
You have inserted the sentence, "There are several cases of astronomers who claimed that following a cataract operation, they could see shorter wavelengths than other people, slightly into the ultraviolet." into Radiation astronomy. Could you please supply a literature/Wikipedia citation or reference for this?
Probationary custodianship[edit source]
Welcome aboard, Collingwood. Please familiarise yourself with Wikiversity:Policies and try out the tools. You may be interested to contribute to the How to be a Wikimedia sysop course and also How to be a Wikimedia sysop/Wikiversity. Please let me know if I can do anything to help. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Where did I mess up?[edit source]
copyright on photos[edit source]
Thanks for alerting me to the copyright issue on my photos in http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/File:Ame-layers.jpg
Can I change the copyright settings? Or do I have to re-upload the file and redo the links that point to it?
I tried to go to the link on the photo http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/File:Ame-evert-1.jpg and clicked the "Edit" tab near the very top of that page. "Edit" brings me to this link http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ame-evert-1.jpg&action=edit but I don't see where to change the copyright settings. Please let me know specifically where to change the copyright settings.
How to explain the reasons that we can use materials from others[edit source]
Thanks for reminding us with the copyright issues of photos and videos on our Wikiversity page. You mentioned if you borrow sources from others we should explain why we think we can apply them in this open platform. Where can we put down our explanation? And who is going to prove our explanation?
Nomination for full custodianship[edit source]
Apologies for the delay, but I have now nominated you for full custodianship. Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Collingwood.-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Sincerely, James
Babel - Users by language[edit source]
You've deleted the category "Babel - Users by language". I noticed there are a lot of pages linking to that category instead of Category:Users by language. It looks like it's used in the new babel extension (see for example the new red link on my userpage), but I'm not sure where this can be fixed. Do you know?
In the future, block these on sight even for first offenses. This is a long-term Chinese spambot and there's no use in warning or assuming good faith; User:Enveloppe1yi is another one of them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some more, see my edits. --Makecat (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I see that the ones you reported have already been deleted, but of course I shall remain vigilant.--Collingwood (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
A request[edit source]
Hello Collingwood. I'm going to ask you (it seems as if you are one of the few admins active) what you would think about opting into the scope of GSs (as Jasper Deng suggested above). I've seen before on RC Billinghurst blocking and deleting spambot stuff; well, he shouldn't do it theoretically, but there's a great deal of spam here so he was somehow forced to deal with it. IMHO en.wikiversity is one of the most bombarded wikis by spammers and according to a ToolServer's tool there are just 2/3 admins active right now (even if there are lots of custodians here). That's why I'd suggest doing an Opt-in for GS so that they could help here (only) deleting spam stuff (other things are managed by local sysops). That's just a suggestion of course. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Esperanto learning project[edit source]
You are the last one who edit the Esperanto department pages/resource. I want to get it bigger with more learning resources etc. and I need/want to do it with you because I see that you are the last one to edit the Topic:Esperanto, and maybe more familiar with teaching than me. MEuliĉo (discuss • contribs) 08:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The Poetlister problem[edit source]
Collingwood was blocked and locked as a sock of Poetlister. Poetlister was a user in good standing here on Wikiversity, and was openly active here. The user has extensive wiki experience, including as a bureaucrat and administrator, but had used sock puppets on other wikis, and was blocked on a number of them.
He had also engaged in some pretense, using a photo of a woman represented as him. That was called "identity theft," which is a crime, but no crime was committed. It was deceptive without being criminal. The woman would have had a right to civil action, compounded by Poetlister's admissions that this account was his. (And his real name is known, and he was harassed by a Wikipedia administrator with threats of outing, injury to job reputation, in one of the most shocking documents I've read as an action of a WP admin. It's famous.)
He began work here, and was pursued and harassed, but he was protected here. He was globally locked, improperly, and I intervened on meta and the lock was lifted.
There was then a global ban discussion. That discussion showed, to me, how the open purposes of policy, as to the welfare of the wikis, can be defeated by other agendas, that can become quite personal. There was, at the time of the global ban discussion, no recent problematic editing. His last block had been on a wiki where he had disclosed his identity to bureaucrats. When he requested adminship, his identity was revealed (apparently as a result of private disclosure on the checkuser wiki), the bureaucrats were embarrassed, and instead of defending him (he had not been disruptive there), they joined the clamor to ban him.
I argued in the ban discussion that we were collectively much better off with Poetlister openly editing one of the wikis. In that way, stewards could monitor his IP and user agent information, and better and more easily identify socks. I also argued that the present and recent contributions of the user were not problematic. In any case, the global ban was implemented, but the Poetlister account here was not globally linked, so it was unaffected.
A 'crat here blocked Poetlister per the global ban. This was discussed, and the local discussion showed no consensus to block. In a prior case involving a globally locked user, considered banned as well, that 'crat had argued that block should take consensus, not unblock. So, after discussion showed no consensus, I unblocked.
The block was immediately reinstated without discussion, and I was emergency desysopped by request of the 'crat.
In any case, what ensued could have been predicted. I am not totally convinced that Collingwood was Poetlister, but in private communication, Poetlister did acknowledge that there was a connection, that she was a friend of his, and they may have shared some internet connection at one time. I do not know if I can trust his statement.
Poetlister is quite persistent. If he is not provided with a legitimate channel for contribution, he will find other ways to act. He's human, and that is, in fact, what normal humans commonly do ("avoid domination"). Collingwood was not disruptive here.
If he was Poetlister, that's a problem, in his 'crat candidacy, because prior accounts should be disclosed for privileged accounts. In all the prior cases where Poetlister was a 'crat, there was no abuse of the privilege. He did sock with an administrator account, and, on reviewing those actions, on the attached discussion page at meta to the global ban discussion, the additional account made no difference in any actual discussion or action, nor was such alleged. In some ways, Poetlister was an enigma, insisting on shooting himself in the foot.
Had we allowed Poetlister to continue, simply following our normal policy, there would have been no Collingwood candidacy, and we need skilled users more than we need 'crats. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Jtneill requested information on the identification of Collingwood with Poetlister, see response on meta. This is that response:
- The Wikimedia Foundation has been monitoring the Collingwood account for some time, since suspicions were first raised. Using a combination of technical and non-technical data, we are confident (four independent staff members, analyzing independently and sharing their results at the end feel exactly the same way) that Collingwood can not possibly be independent of Poetlister. The Foundation will adamently oppose any local unblock. Poetlister represents a clear danger to our editing community, and we will not allow that. Full technical data will not be shared publicly, for a variety of confidentiality based reasons. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The conclusion is "not independent of Poetlister." The meaning of that is unclear. Poetlister has acknowledged, privately, knowing Collingwood. They may well be co-located physically, i.e., Collingwood is apparently a friend of Poetlister, by his account. That could easily be "not independent." This does not show sock puppetry. It does not necessarily show "meat puppetry," which in Wikipedia parlance, is often considered tantamount to sock puppetry. Poetlister, as an experienced administrator and bureaucrat, may well have advised Collingwood.
Speaking on behalf of Wikiversity, we are obligated to respect the right of the WikiMedia Foundation to take such steps as it deems necessary to protect its interests.
We are, however, not obligated to agree with their assessment of a "clear danger," nor to agree with the decision to include Collingwood in the global ban. I want to distinguish between "agree" and "accept." We accept the decision of the Foundation.
However, a careful review of the global ban discussion shows, to me, that, while there was definitely a widespread impression of danger, there was no showing of any recent manifestation of danger, and there was the opposite.
If Poetlister were actually dangerous, the danger was doubtlessly increased by the ban, because, then, there being no channel for open positive contributions, Poetlister could, indeed, start socking without loss.
(Having an active account here meant that Poetlister IP was readily determinable by any steward. No active account, whatever information is kept becomes stale.)
We do not know how Collingwood was found to be "related" to Poetlister, but there are technical means, well known, to avoid checkuser detection. Poetlister was a checkuser at one time. He would certainly know how to do it.
I have removed the sock puppet templates on the User page, they are inaccurate. Collingwood is not blocked. Contributions do not show identity as Poetlister, those comments are standard Wikipedia trope. We do not know what kind of information was used by the WMF to determine the "relationship" between Collingwood and Poetlister, so we should not state it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)