User talk:JWSchmidt/Second half 2010 discussions

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

uncivil pages or page names in your user space[edit source]

At your request on my talk page, the following are page names that I consider uncivil. Long ago, in 2006, you requested, "Let me know when I "cross the line" and start to disrupt the atmosphere of collaboration rather than support it." These are examples, provided with comment as part of an effort to return you to useful activity as an administrator by addressing the problem that led to loss.

  • User talk:JWSchmidt/JWSchmidt is a Troll. The comments you placed in this archive do not assert that you are a troll. You link to this page with a comment on your Talk page of For those who have called me troll and told me that you refuse to talk to me, I have created a special subpage for you to use. --JWSchmidt 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I have not researched if the editor there said that at some point, and it would be irrelevant. Editors say all kinds of things about how they feel and what they will do, and it does not bind them. Setting aside a special page for comments, which then do not trigger your talk page notice, is abusive, though I'd say it's allowed for ordinary users, even if it is often a bad sign. I've done it (on only for IP editors, so that they can still make comments for eventual review even if the page is semi-protected, which was often necessary. The actual edits you have moved to this archive were proper, civil, and of the kind that should properly be addressed, no matter what the editor wrote elsewhere. You have the right to ask specific editors not to make comments on your talk page, excepting required notices, but this then gives them the right to bypass the first stage of ordinary dispute resolution, direct discussion with you, and can increase disruption.
  • User talk:JWSchmidt/JWSchmidt is a whiner. The post does not assert that you are a whiner, but implies that you were whining. I.e., an incident. Perhaps you were, perhaps you were not, and the comment was uncivil, but an incident of whining does not a whiner make, as a general accusation. But this was in 2008. Are you intending to memorialise and dignify with a special page, every transient incivility? This is preserving and maintaining conflict. If you have a complaint about the user, you can certainly pursue dispute resolution, but you know what would happen if you did. "2008? Are you crazy? Anything recent?"
  • User talk:JWSchmidt/JWSchmidt go fuck yourself. The admin in question was clearly and sincerely trying to give you good advice, and was also, quite likely, angry. The "go fuck yourself" was not the message, it's in a conditional clause, conditional upon upon your not "ditching the hate." This was unwise for him to say, probably, but simply informal, colloquial and dicta. It was only formally uncivil. Your taking the single arguably uncivil element in this comment and tagging the whole comment with it is showing an inability to recognize balance, and a focus on conflict rather than on resolving conflict, and that's pretty much what he was talking about.
  • Wikiversity:General_disclaimer Adambro should not have blocked you, my opinion, after becoming involved in a dispute with you. But this whole situation was considered somewhat of an emergency, there were sysops and others who believed that Wikiversity was in danger of being shut down. The comments were not "silly attacks," nor were they "nonsense." They were opinions and positions, with some support and some opposition. Adambro, in this section, also notified you of the block. This is material that should probably be in your general archive, though you do have the right to delete it at this point. I'd oppose, however, any admin deleting talk page comment of any possible value. But by this time, of course, you were not an admin. Your continued behavior may prevent, unfortunately, your return as an admin, unless you recognize the problem. It is not about censorship and it is not about confronting abuse, except for confrontation that increases disruption rather than resolving and preventing it.
  • unblock_request. Are you saying that your unblock request and the response is a silly attack and nonsense? Perhaps having been an admin for so long and with limited experience, you were unaware of the general advice to never attack the blocking admin as biased in an unblock request, it is not grounds for unblock. Ever. Rather, the grounds would be that the block is unnecessary for the prevention of damage, and that should be accompanied by assurances that possible disruption or damage would not continue. Mikeu, in my opinion, properly declined to unblock, because the proper grounds were missing, and your apparent attitude in the unblock request would maintain legitimate fear of disruption; as well, Mikeu covered the original problem, i.e., confirmed that your edit was inappropriate. Hint, JWS. I don't even put up unblock requests for a 24-hour block, because losing 24 hours of my editing is simply not enough damage, normally, to waste the time of an administrator. An unblock request is not the place to try to prove that a block was abusive and improper, that simply increases disruption. If you were a newbie, maybe it would be worth it, but you weren't and aren't.
  • Wikiversity:Vandalism. I see that my comment is included here. This is not the way to win friends and influence people, JWS. The whole topic is about your disruptive editing, and it was plainly disruptive, even trolling, and if you don't realize, that, I become seriously worried. You were, I'd say, trying to make a point by using that page. It was deliberately confrontational, turning one kind of a dispute into a larger one, propagating and spreading it, and had I, seeing it, been an admin, I might have blocked you. But just another short block. You were not blocked, and that's okay, too. That admins were acting to restrain you at that time was absolutely necessary, given the perceived threat to Wikiversity's survival. For reference, your subject edit.
  • Eukaryotic_gene_example. This was just an ordinary request from Adambro, and probably a kind of error. But in no way was it an "attack," nor was it nonsense, and it was Adambro's duty, upon seeing your edit and with what he thought about it, to inform you. Again, back to the purpose here. This is disrupting "the atmosphere of collaboration rather than" supporting it.

You have apparently lost your original compass, collaboration. I suggest returning to it, and showing that by your activity. You had the right idea then, and you can return to it. Your contribution, mentioned above last, appears positive and good, and if Adambro thought there was something out of place, then "collaboration" requires discussing it with him. Doesn't it? --Abd 19:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes[edit source]

it never my "spare time" I've done some research into the history of the battles over "fringe science" at Wikipedia. The entire saga, going back to 2001, might provide a useful (even if book-length) account of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia model for collaboration, which could, in turn, provide a basis for making changes and improvements to the system. It is a shame that such research projects are not allowed at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 13:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
WAS has pointed to an RfAr permanent version, I'd urge looking at the whole thing. It's long. There, I raised the issue of a "cabal." This is the same "group" of editors being referred to in the current RfAr/Climate Change. As a result of having intervened in that situation, see WP:Requests for comment/GoRight and then follow the links in my comment there, and see RfC/JzG 3 and the ensuing RfAr/Abd and JzG, this group of editors then came after me, as can be seen by the later RfAr and what preceded it. I was not alleging individual misbehavior (except for JzG and William M. Connolley) but the term "cabal" was twisted to require a meaning of conscious coordination, which I very specifically did not allege. That device had been used for years to deflect mention of the obvious. It's now really obvious, so obvious that neutral administrators started confronting it and were, themselves, promptly attacked and their positions misrepresented. See the recently opened w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Now, I hesitate to even mention this here, because, absolutely, I do not want to import these disputes into Wikiversity, nor do I want to use a Wikiversity resource to study the situation, unless and until the necessary precedent conditions are prepared, and, then, it will not be me leading that examination, I'll be a witness, not a judge or executive.
JWS, I agree that study of the situation could and would be useful, but it is difficult. You believe that "such research projects are not allowed at Wikiversity." Not allowed by whom? I probably have more understanding of what came down at Wikiversity than you think. I'm in reasonably good communication with the two major "banned editors." Who are not, in my view, actually banned from Wikiversity, merely currently blocked. The community never formed a consensus on this. (See Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton. But because there are, indeed, legitimate concerns about what they did, and about the "ethics" projects, which were premature and suffered from inadequate preparation and framing and operating guidelines, I am not pushing beyond certain simple and cautious efforts, and please do look at Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects/Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion and the parent page and the attached parent Talk page. "Ethical" issues are high-level abstractions, and attempting to examine wiki behavior without having groundrules defining the ethics of the examination, and without beginning with raw and objective collection of evidence, not contaminated with ethical judgments, is academically unsound. Moulton used Wikiversity to attempt to expose and address what he saw as ethical violations at Wikipedia. I happen to agree with him, as to ethical violations, and so do many other observers, but this very easily becomes a witch hunt, an attempt to blame the problems on individuals or specific collections of individuals, when, in fact, the problem is not these individuals, it is structural, as you mention, "the Wikipedia model."
My view is that the model isn't itself the problem, except as the model became rigid and incapable of self-correction, through forces that are fairly well-understood by those who study this kind of stuff. I.e., people like me. I'm not an academic, not literally, but my views and concerns are on that kind of level. As to my own situation, I am, obviously, involved, as was Moulton in his. Academic study is, in my view, an aspect of judgment, as in the function of the judiciary, and requires idependence and neutrality. Judges do not judge their own cases. People like Moulton should be interviewed by those who organize studies of wikihistory, evidence provided by them should be incorporated neutrally, with attribution, as well as evidence from anyone willing to testify, so to speak. We have no subpoena power, we cannot compel testimony, but we could possibly do damage through cherry-picking of evidence and the presentation of it out-of-context. The legitimate concerns of some as to the use of Wikiversity to pursue personal grievances was easily mixed with the desire of some to avoid examination, but, if we proceed with due caution and respect, as would be required of a genuine academic inquiry, and with the clear goal of better system design and guidance, instead of the humiliation and exposure of "wrong-doers," we can study all of this here.
Please consider participating in the examination of the Newbie treatment situation. It's a small case and a small example, a pilot study, so to speak. I set this up to support Privatemusing's efforts, having become aware of all this through the flap over the block of Thekohser. Through all this, I maintained some level of rapport with Jimbo, and believe that I have a general understanding of his position. I think that few understand the pressures he has faced. He has made mistakes. And wikis are designed to be "fixable." Blaming the problems of Wikipedia and Wikiversity on Jimbo is an immature response. What was done was actually, overall, excellent, but incomplete, and it is up to the community to complete it. How? That's the task we face. JWS, you can be a part of that process and solution, or you can remain stuck in resentment and blame. Your choice.
So far, I have not see a willingness in you to re-examine the situation, to recognize the "other side," and to understand the structural problem as distinct from the personality problems. You have fallen into an easy and ancient error, the belief that social problems are the result of "bad people," and that they can be fixed by getting rid of the bad people. This is the same error as is made by the "other side," you have simply joined them in that. "Exposing" these people is a bit different, and more legitimate, but tends to fall into the same general emotional context and to be perceived as being identical
The shift I'm suggesting to you is difficult for most people, I'd say, and I won't blame you if you can't do it. I also recognize how easy it is for people to think I'm arrogant. But I'm an old man, facing death, as we all do, and I basically don't care what people think about me, I am facing a deeper and wiser judge, and I'm only responsible for expressing what I see, not for it being, even, correct. Take what you can use, and leave the rest. But don't say you weren't informed.
The real problem is one of how large communities manage attention and information flow. Eventually, I hope, we will have resources here on this, it's cutting edge, inadequately covered, so far, in standard academic sources. I could tell plenty of stories of "ethical abuse" at Wikipedia, but that is beside the point. My goal here would be to derive useful wisdom from what has happened, to provide neutral analysis of the evidence, with "neutral" being determined as it should be determined on Wikipedia, by consensus. Real consensus. Following real consensus process. Again, do we have any resources here on what "consensus process" is? How can genuine consensus be found and measured? Is it static or dynamic? And so on.
JWS, a foundation must be built before what you and I would like to see can be managed. Will you join in this process? Or will you be an example of the problems we must face and examine? A casualty in the lists of casualties? I see you "trolling" to be banned, in a way, and that's an objective use of the term, not a condemnation. It means to dare someone to respond negatively. It does not make you a "troll," which would be someone whose entire purpose is such a dare. By responding to specific commentary on your behavior as "trolling," with certain incidents rather easy to see and judge as such, as if you were being called a "troll," you are demonstrating either an inability or a reluctance to look at the situation collaboratively, which requires considering evidence and opinion from people you might easily think of as "enemies," out to ban you, in retaliation for your "honesty." Yes, collaboration means collaborating with "barbarians." Historically, the barbarians crushed the academics, piled up mounds of skulls. Do not invite the barbarians to consider you an enemy. There are far more useful means of approach to them, and, in the end, the people you think of as barbarians also want knowledge and justice, they just don't necessarily recognize, at first, what they are. Show them. If you exclude them as outsiders, they will exclude you. That's all. Good luck, and let me know if you need help or you want to help. --Abd 16:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
One specific comment on the evidence page linked by WAS above. See [1], Item 9. Jehochman could be blocked for saying that And edits disruptively [100] Actually, that section was not about J. saying that I edited disruptively. It was about Jehochman revert warring on my Talk page, preventing me from using it to organize evidence while I was blocked. And, later, J. apologized for his behavior (about the allegations of disruptive editing, not the specific problem then, which was transient and J. did back off.) Because I carefully followed the real dispute resolution process with J., we became wikifriends and I actually met him in real life, and he was later supportive. The evidence was full of this kind of misrepresentation of history, and it would take hours and an even larger tome to describe it all. And that's common on Wikipedia, when an editor is pursuing an agenda with respect to another editor, that evidence is cherry-picked from history and framed to create an impression, which can succeed for readers who are not careful. And even arbitrators are sometimes not careful. Good deliberative process would filter all this out, but Wikipedia has not learned how to create that kind of process. How about we demonstrate it here? --Abd 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation/Final report[edit source]

I came across this page and noticed some revert warring there and an apparent response by you to satisfy probably spurious objections of a user who was promptly blocked for the disruption. I restored the page to how you had left it, except for the material you added later about that incident with the blocked user, which doesn't seem relevant to the "Final report," but since I did remove material added by you, I thought I should let you know. If you added "<censored> because you came to believe that the material was harmful, and if you think the unfortunate history of that blocked editor is important to the report, then feel free to revert the page back to how it was. --Abd 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, consensus rules the content pages. At Wikiversity, everyone is allowed to express their own opinion in their own way on their own content pages (owning a content page is allowed here). Wikipedia summarizes known data. Wikiversity researches and teaches. Wikipedia gives known data. Wikiversity asks questions, explores answers, and teaches the process of learning. Original research is not allowed at Wikipedia. Wikiversity, like universities, encourages original research in the context of exploring what will or won't someday become known data. That being so, why does he need your say-so to say what he wishes in his own way? (rhetorical question; no answer is needed - but I expect you will anyway) - WAS 4.250 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Never confuse the way things should be with the way they are. What you have written about Wikiversity above is a kind of ideal. Is it policy, and is it enforced? How and by whom? I am not JWS's boss and he does not need my permission to say anything. What would make you imagine I think otherwise? --Abd 05:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Abd, above you wrote, "If you added <censored> because you came to believe that the material was harmful..." and I want to let you know that the story behind this edit is rather complex. User:Centaur of attention had just been blocked from editing at Wikiversity, but I had argued (in the Wikiversity IRC chat channel) against imposing such a block (I'm sickened by the barbaric practice of blocking and banning Wikiversity participants in order to prevent them from sharing their views). It is my belief that the views of Wikipedians such as User:Centaur of attention should be studied by Wikiversity participants, not suppressed. When I made this edit to the "final report" it was a few days after Jimbo's first visit to Wikiversity. Jimbo had suggested, "One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on 'case studies' using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals." So, This edit to the "final report" was largely in response to that suggestion from Jimbo. User:Salmon of Doubt (another Wikipedian's puppet account) had previously made comments similar to those expressed by "Centaur of attention", and I had long been in the process of responding to his complaints about my research. Also, there was a related suggestion from another Wikipedian that my research constituted an "attack". I was highly skeptical about the value of all the suggestions from Wikipedians (CoA, SoD, KC, Jimbo), but I was actively exploring the points of view held by Wikipedian's who had expressed concerns about my research. At that time, the entire "Wikimedia Ethics" project had been proposed for deletion and threats had been made by Wikipedians about terminating the Wikiversity project. So, the "bottom line" is that I understand why you wrote, "apparent response by you to satisfy probably spurious objections of a user who was promptly blocked for the disruption", but the actions of User:Centaur of attention were only part of of what motivated my experiment with using "<censored>" to replace some specific details in the "report". Should the views of people like "Centaur of attention" be mentioned in a summary of of such a research project? I suggest that doing so is probably a good idea, but I was still thinking about the best way to do so when I was blocked from editing and desyoped. Anyhow, by then, because of the wave of harassment from Wikipedians, I had mostly shifted my research-related activities to my user pages (see User:JWSchmidt/Blog/16 September 2008) and discussions of Wikiversity research policy. --JWSchmidt 06:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning about misleading edit[edit source]

Editing pages to make them a policy without discussion and consensus is not appropriate and misleading. If you do it again, you will be blocked for 24 hours. -- darklama  13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How was my edit "misleading"? --JWSchmidt 14:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Policies, guidelines, and processes reflect what the community generally wants. What the community wants isn't known without discussion. People that look to policies, guidelines, and processes to understand how Wikiversity works and how they should do things put their trust into them to reflect what is expected of them and others. By changing the status of a proposal when it does not reflect what the community generally wants and hasn't expressed a desire to expect others to do the same, you are misleading people into doing things that are not expected of them, which can lead to conflicts and trust in the integrity of policies, guidelines, and processes being lost that could of otherwise been avoided through discussion and compromise. -- darklama  15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
misleading people into doing things that are not expected of them <-- You lost me. There has been, for years, a need to restrain the content of Wikiversity pages about schools and make such pages a useful part of Wikiversity. Wikiversity community members have frequently and consistently expressed the kind of sentiment that is explicitly stated in that policy page. That policy page says what is expected of people. Anyone with a different view is free to go to the talk page and make their case. Why do you disrupt the natural development of needed Wikiversity policies with absurd threats rather than editing collaboratively to improve needed policies? --JWSchmidt 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There may have been a need for years to do so, but no discussion or general argument of how or if contents needs to be restrained. I believe you are the one that is disrupting the natural development of what Wikiversity needs or doesn't need and are the one that is not editing collaboratively through your attempts to impose your personal views on an entire community. Wikiversity is not a community of one. If you want things a certain way you'll either need to convince most people that your way is best, or start your own project where what you say goes. If you want to, you can even try to convince most people that there is a better way to create new policies, guidelines, and processes that should be done, but until such time as the Wikiversity community demonstrates a willingness to accept another way, you will be blocked for incrementally longer times if you change the status of a proposal again when there has been no discussion that shows the community supports making a proposal a policy, guideline, or process. -- darklama  15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Darklama, some policy wonkery here, based on "wiki common law," if nothing else. But first, JWS, behind Darklama's warning is a legitimate request: please do not convert a proposed policy page to a stated policy page without some kind of open discussion process being established, so that any policy implementation is adequately discussed or at least exposed adequately to discussion, and just that a proposed policy sits there for a time isn't enough. Who notices it? I fully support Darklama's request and we might think of making a policy out of it. With adequate discussion, of course!

But, on the other hand, I'm quite uncomfortable about an administrator taking a content position (policy/proposed policy) and threatening a user with a block if the user does not accept that position. Maybe, but that violates a basic principle, that admin tools aren't used to assert a personal content position. There is obviously a gray area, and policy pages are important and shouldn't be allowed to stand for even a short time without there being consensus behind them, but blocking would be an extreme measure; instead, the page could be protected, if it is shown that JWS will not restrain himself, with invitation to discuss. Only if JWS became generally disruptive would a block be needed. Technically, protection while in personal conflict is also recusal failure, but we are short on administrators and it's certainly less damaging than blocking, and the protection could be minimal (say, for 24 hours or a few days) and, of course, the discussion page would not be protected, so JWS could pursue his legitimate desire to establish clear policy. --Abd 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes page protection could also be done, but that would prevent everyone else from trying to improve a proposal as well, which is disruptive too. JWS is fine to propose changes, and to add to the proposal. I'm not taking a content position. I'm talking only about converting a page in a proposed state to a policy, guideline, or process. I'm only attempting to be clear that this a warning and what not to do again, because there has been criticism about failing to warn and point out problematic behavior before taking action in the past. JWSchmidt doesn't have to like it and he is free to pursue discussion with the community against blocking for converting a page in a proposed state to a policy, guideline, or process without discussion and is free to pursue the community of alternatives if he chooses. -- darklama  17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • attempts to impose your personal views on an entire community <-- Please list these "personal views". "start your own project" <-- Cormaggio and I started the Wikiversity project as a place for collaborative online learning. Why don't you start your own project where you can freely impose bad blocks and bans on honest wiki participants while accusing them of "disruption"? Your absurd threats about imposing your will on Wikiversity by endlessly handing out bad blocks is sickening. --JWSchmidt 16:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Your personal view in this discussion is that for years Wikiversity has been in need to restrain content, and you acted on that personal view by converting a proposal into a policy which is not appropriate because you did not seek to discuss and gather support to do so before you acted. Wikiversity is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, you don't own Wikiversity. -- darklama  17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal view in this discussion is that for years Wikiversity has been a need to restrain content and you acted on that personal view by converting a proposal into a policy which is not appropriate because you did not seek to discuss and gather support to do so before you acted. <-- I saw yet another discussion by Wikiversity participants of the need to have rules to deal with pages about schools. Such discussions have gone on for years. There has always been consensus about how to deal with this matter, so I put the {{policy}} tag on the policy page that addresses this problem. It is absurd to pretend that my edit was disruptive. I was just editing so as to move the community in the right direction. For you to threaten a block over this is absurd. You seem to be trying to pretend that I violated Wikiversity policy by making my good faith edit; your personal beliefs about how to use Custodial tools do not justify the claim that you must block me from editing. Such abuse of sysop power is not helping the Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"There has always been consensus about how to deal with this matter" is another personal view of yours. If consensus always existed, you would not of had to convert a proposal to policy without discussion and without signs of support. Suggesting the proposal be made a policy is the way to move the community in the right direction. Converting the proposal into a policy without discussion and without signs of support does nothing to move the community forward because the community has not demonstrated any agreement to follow the proposal. -- darklama  17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The community can only move forward when the community can agree there is a need to move forward and the community can agree how to move forward. You should encourage the community to move forward and join in community discussions, instead of converting proposals to policy without discussion which circumvents the community and that disrupts the community. -- darklama  17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How abusive sysops promote discussion and policy development[edit source]

example: censor it and threaten to block good faith editors.

24 Hour Block[edit source]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption by converting a proposal into a policy yet again without consensus. -- darklama  01:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|There is consensus for the blocking policy. If the blocking sysop does not agree with my view of consensus then he should discuss his views like a civilized person rather than impose his view by mis-using the block tool. The blocking sysop should learn to edit collaboratively rather than disrupt needed policy development. An honest Custodian should unblock me so that I can participate in developing needed policies. --JWSchmidt 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}}

Request granted: OK. I agree that developing policies is needed, but please don't push the policies that aren't yet approved by the community :) Diego Grez 01:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It is absurd to impose a block when anyone can put the "proposal" template back on a policy page at any time. --JWSchmidt 01:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
JWS, it's obvious that you've been defying a reasonable position without consensus. I'm not saying that Darklama is right, but that his position is reasonable, that a proposed policy should not become a Policy without some measure of consensus more than just it sat there for a while. I suggest that, with all such changes you made, that, instead of making the change directly, you propose on the attached Discussion page that the page become a Policy page, stating your intention. If that sits there for a week with no comment, your edit would be defensible. Is there anything difficult about that? Seems you might have a series of these and you could also call attention to them on the Colloquium.
Having said this, if you write "honest custodian" once more with an implication that whoever blocked you wasn't honest, or that honesty is a rarity here (when this was simply a difference of opinion, and a 24 hour block is just a "stop sign," when you didn't stop when warned), I will be sorely tempted to block you for incivility. It's unnecessary, it's provocative, it's inflammatory. Stop it. I won't actually block you, because I should recuse. But I can certainly raise the issue and suggest it. --Abd 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"it sat there for a while" <-- is that is all you can see as the reason for having a blocking policy? "I will be sorely tempted to block you" <-- Maybe we can start a Wikiversity page where we can list all the dishonest statements that have been made by Wikiversity sysops, then I will link to that page every time I use the word "honest". --JWSchmidt 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
JWSchmidt, I highly recommend that you return to the business of building this project and drop the business of listing "all the [allegedly] dishonest statements that have been made by Wikiversity sysops." Suppose there have been 2,392 of them. So what? That list would accomplish nothing but create debate over whether the statements were dishonest or not, allowable or not, desysop-worthy or not, actionable or not. If there is some actual situation that requires consideration, bring it up. But statements by individual sysops carry very little weight, in the end, what counts is community consensus and, as a subset, the consensus of those with privileged access. The latter is short-term of more weight, the former will trump the latter in the long term. We are acting to open the door to the return of Thekohser and Moulton, which may open the door to the return of those who left over that flap. If, however, you keep returning to the old disputes and inflaming them with charges of dishonesty and the rest, it will delay resolution. What's your goal, JWS? The humiliation of all those who offended you? Or what?
On the present issue, it appears that some of us think that a policy page should not be so labelled until there has been an explicit discussion of that, to convert a proposed policy to an actual one. This would be standard deliberative process. There can be work in committee, so to speak, about what form some legislation should take. The committee does not decide the legislation, rather, at some point it submits a report, which is, in our case, a draft of a page that has settled. So submit the report! It's up to the community to accept, reject, amend, etc. By labelling the page a policy, you are effectively claiming the right to unilaterally accept a policy page as-is. Sure, it's done that way on Wikipedia. But I'm not sure that's functional except within the Wikipedia model, which is that there really are no policies or guidelines that you can rely upon, there are merely stronger or weaker suggestions; as to block policy there, the reality is that an admin can block, and unless an admin offends other admins, there is very little one can do about it. I confronted two such situations, creating an enormous flap, a huge amount of wasted time, and "success," i.e., ArbComm found that, indeed, there had been admin abuse. And the result? Practically no change, except for one less sysop and one user banned from ever raising issues like that again. We can do better, JWS, and it starts by paying attention to process details as well as to community consensus. --Abd 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"return to the business of building this project" <-- is there a bad-faith assumption being made, an assumption that I do not edit so as to advance the Wikiversity project? "So what?" <-- It appears that some wiki participants object to abusive and dishonest sysops while others don't. I believe that it is healthy for a wiki community to discuss the problem of abusive and dishonest sysops. "What's your goal, JWS? The humiliation of all those who offended you? Or what?" <-- I'm interested in exploring wiki technology as a tool for supporting online learning. I enjoy using Wikiversity as playground for learning. Since 2008, about the only remaining learning project of relevance at Wikiversity is this: can the Wikiversity project be returned to its peaceful pre-2008 roots? I'm not interested in humiliation. I grew up in a culture (among scientists) where your friends point out your weaknesses and then you thank them for doing so. Humiliation only comes when everyone fails to see and correct an error. I work to make sure that errors are detected, discussed, corrected. "paying attention to process details" <-- If I think that Wikiversity needs a policy I will work towards that goal. If someone does not like an edit that I make to a policy page then they can edit collaboratively so as to improve the page. If a sysop disrupts that process by imposing a block then the sysop should have their tools removed. --JWSchmidt 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
And non sysops who disrupt collaborative processes should have what done? You claimed consensus but the talk page lacked it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I dispute your view of what constitutes consensus. Wikiversity needs a blocking policy, the community created one, it should be official....should long ago have been official. --JWSchmidt 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

request for custodial action re JWS[edit source]

Please see Request_custodian_action#User:JWSchmidt. --Abd 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"tendentious incivility" Is that a Wikipedia code term like "troll"? Please list some examples of "tendentious incivility" here so that I can respond to your charges. I'll assume that you mean that archiving my talk page in this way is "tendentious incivility". My talk page archiving is a way to deal with the horrors that I have been subjected to by abusive sysops. It is sickening that a few abusive sysops claim the right to terrorize a small learning community like Wikiversity. I claim the right to defend myself and the Wikiversity project. If tensions exist, the solution is to do something about the abusive sysops. As we have discussed before, it is the duty of wiki participants to identify, discuss and deal with abuse of power by sysops. I count on honest Custodians to assist in this process. There is nothing incivil about identifying, discussing and dealing with abuse of power by sysops. Do you claim that my editing of policy pages is also "tendentious incivility"? "only of blaming and counterattacking" <-- I'm sorry that you do not assume good faith with respect to my participation at Wikiversity. I find it odd that abusive sysops can do things like tell me to fuck off, can publish absurdly false claims about my participation at Wikiversity and can subject me to laughably bad blocks and bans, yet, when I defend myself against the abuses I am targeted for yet more abusive sysop action. "his own dysfunctional behavior" <-- Objecting to, studying and working to correct problems caused by sysops who abuse their power is only dysfunctional if the abusive sysops remain in power. I still hope that Wikiversity can be returned to its peaceful state before the hostile takeover of 2008, return to the conditions that prevailed when honest Wikiversity participants were not heaped with abuse and condemned for defending themselves. --JWSchmidt 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Two proposed policies need discusson[edit source]

Please see. I am contacting regulars and admin so we can start going through our proposed policies and establish some. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad block[edit source]

Blocked without warning. Can an honest Custodian set me free? --JWSchmidt 21:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference, my explanation about this situation is here. Whilst you are correct that you were not specifically warned, as I've explained in my comments, you should by now be well aware of the concerns. A warning would have had no effect. Adambro 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

JWSchmidt has a long history of failing to comply with two key policies on Wikiversity; WV:AGF and WG:CIVIL. <-- This is false. Discussing abuse of power by sysops is not a violation of any policy, it is a normal duty of participants in a wiki community. Why would anyone object to good faith and perfectly civil discussions about abuse of power? "his hostile approach" <-- I'm sorry that you cannot assume good faith with respect to my participation at Wikiversity. I've defended Wikiversity against outside invaders who have vastly disrupted the project. Why would anyone view defense of Wikiversity as "hostile"? "ask that other custodians don't unblock him without the community discussion that I've suggested" <-- You have it backwards. You should have talked first. I should unblocked so that I can defend myself against your false charges. "A warning would have had no effect" <-- also false. By blocking first and "justifying" your bad block with false claims you demonstrated once again that you should not have access to sysop tools. Remove the bad block that you put on my editing. --JWSchmidt 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with this block. My view is that due process is owed here - including warning and community review. Further details. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested custodian response to the situation with JWSchmidt, at Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#User:JWSchmidt; however, the first sentence of my request was I am asking for a review by a neutral administrator of the behavior of JWSchmidt, with emphasis now added. Adambro is not a neutral administrator. Now, it's possible that there are no active neutral administrators, and in an emergency, then, any admin may block to prevent immediate disruption. While there has been ongoing incivility, it is not clear to me that serious damage was being done; the worst thing I've seen was that JWS's comments may have exacerbated problems with efforts to open a door to communication with the blocked (banned?) user Moulton at User talk:Caprice, and this is not serious enough to warrant an emergency block. In general, an administrator should not block for incivility directed toward the particular administrator, nor, in my view, for incivility directed toward any administrator unless it is grossly disruptive and offensive and likely to drive away a useful volunteer. Generally, as administrators, we should cultivate a thick skin and understand that users frustrated by our actions may become angry and act inappropriately.
JWS has been a long-term contributor to Wikipedia, and deserves every opportunity to conform to necessary community norms. Accordingly, I would unblock him immediately upon a promise to avoid incivility or the appearance of incivility, pending community review, where he could argue, for example, that he wasn't being uncivil. If that promise cannot be obtained (JWS clearly disagrees with the community on the definition of incivility), I would still unblock him under a page ban that disallows any editing except to his Talk page and a Review process page to allow him to respond to charges of incivility and to negotiate some response or solution. The Request for Custodian action was not designed to be a Community Review; so I would ask that any user (including any administrator) wishing to start such a review do so. If no review is started within a reasonable time, JWS should be unconditionally unblocked. Administrators are servants of the community, not its governors.
While Adambro should not have blocked, because of involvement, that does not, in itself, require that the user be unblocked.
Jtneill, there were plenty of warnings and there was continued behavior, but, I agree, the decision to block was made unilaterally by Adambro and is questionable for that reason. But it is not as if Adambro was acting completely outside of community understanding of the situation. So let's address this. I see it as being resolvable if JWS will recognize that fighting that old battle, instead of helping to clean up the damage caused, is continuing damage and is not benefiting the community and the project. Simply promising to stop gratuitous incivility, i.e., recognizing and acknowledging that certain actions of his were not positive and necessary, but were errors creating further disruption, would be enough. If he cannot recognize this, then, sadly, we would need to move on and allow everyone else to move on. It's been a puzzle to me ever since I started observing the Wikiversity situation in March, and reviewing the old history. --Abd 02:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The trigger for this block seems to have been my participation in policy development, something I'm not very fond of, but I feel an obligation to help in that task. I don't think it is fair that my participation in Wikiversity policy development has been systematically disrupted during the past two years, but if it will lower tensions, I'm willing to restrict my editing to development of learning projects in the main namespace for a period of time determined by User:Jtneill. --JWSchmidt 02:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Objections[edit source]

I object to the fact that "community" discussion about this block is taking place at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. That discussion should be on a page that I can edit, not on a page where most community members will not feel welcome to participate. --JWSchmidt 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Adambro says "I have been a frequent target for JWSchmidt". Adambro, please list on this page examples of these times when you have been a "target". Do you mean when you refused to answer my questions at the community discussion of your custodianship? Do you mean when you violated Wikiversity policy and used rollback to revert my edits? Do you mean when you cited Wikipedia policy to justify blocking me? Do you mean when you spoke in support of page deletions that violated Wikiversity policy? Do you mean when you kicked me from the #wikiversity-en chat channel without warning or providing a reason? Do you mean all the times when you have called for unjustified blocks and bans of Wikiversity participants? --JWSchmidt 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"how long should I be prepared to put up with it?" <-- I believe that sysops should expect that that their actions will be discussed by the community as long as they insist on misusing their sysop and IRC channel ops tools. --JWSchmidt 12:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't believe any warning would have helped here" <-- Adambro, I demand that you support your charges against me with evidence and allow me to respond to your charges. Please list on this page exactly which sentences of mine are uncivil. Please list on this page specific examples of how I failed to assume good faith. Otherwise, remove your bad block. --JWSchmidt 12:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Any attempt to discuss my concerns would have inevitably found itself moved to User talk:JWSchmidt/silly attacks and nonsense and disregarded" <-- I don't disregard the comments that you leave on this page. I read every comment you leave on this page and I respond to those comments in an appropriate way.

"JWSchmidt has had plenty of opportunities to defend himself when pretty much the exact same concerns have been raised" <-- Please list these "opportunities". Do you mean the times when I have been blocked and not allowed to participate in ongoing discussions? Do you mean when secret off-wiki discussions have been held about me? Do you mean when my contributions to community discussions at Wikiversity have been censored? --JWSchmidt 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"If someone feels they have some new suggestions that may resolve this issue then we can discuss them." <-- My suggestion is that sysops and other Wikimedia functionaries stop abusing their power and stop disrupting the Wikiversity community. For the past two years a few misguided Wikimedia functionaries have done vast damage to Wikiversity. These are some of the "issues": out-of process page deletions, emergency desysop procedures when there is no emergency, threats to close Wikiversity, enforcement of Wikipedia rules at Wikiversity, disruption of Wikiversity policy development, the practice of sending hit men from Wikipedia to Wikiversity in order to disrupt the Wikiversity project, imposition of bad blocks and bans, uncivil calls for unjustified blocks and bans, falsification of Wikiversity logs, sysops reviewing their own blocks, custodian candidates given a free pass even when they do not respond to questions from the community, sysops who get away with violations of policy, disruption of the #wikiversity-en chat channel by abusive kicks and bans and the general problem of using vandalism-fighting tools to prevent or terminate discussions. When these abuses of power end then Wikiversity will return to the happy state that existed before the hostile take-over in 2008. I think my suggestion counts as "new" because there seems to be a large group of Wikipedians who have never thought of it. --JWSchmidt 13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"It is not his involvement in policy development per se that is the problem, it is the way in which he conducts himselfs in discussions, any discussions." <-- If you have a problem with my conduct then you should come to this page and discuss the should have done that before imposing a block. Please list (on this page) specific examples of my conduct that you object to and let me respond to your concerns. Adambro, please stop making accusations against me in a forum where I cannot defend myself. Don't you agree that holding show trials (where the accused cannot participate) does damage to Wikiversity and is not the way to run wiki community discussions? --JWSchmidt 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to censorship of Wikiversity community discussions. --JWSchmidt 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"However, does he really think that I would lie about anything I've been involved with on IRC? <-- I'm not particularly interested in putting that to a test. I do call upon you to allow the Wikiversity community to discuss the idea that the #wikiversity-en chat channel is a public forum that should be subject to the same rules as the rest of Wikiversity. The tag-team effort at Wikiversity:Privacy policy to prevent community discussion of such ideas is disruptive. The Wikiversity community needs protection against sysops who abuse their IRC channel operator tools. I call upon User:Darklama and User:Adambro to allow their record as #wikiversity-en channel ops to be examined by the Wikiversity community. Do you give permission for logs of your kicks and bans to be posted at the Colloquium? --JWSchmidt 13:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer a third option (the first two): that Adambro come to this page and discuss his concerns with me. It is not fair that he has been allowed to continue making accusations against me in the wrong forum. I certainly don't think it is fair to hold a "community" review of my participation at Wikiversity and prevent me from defending myself.

"Have you not considered how previous community discussions have been attempted and failed, including where JWSchmidt has been permitted to participated." <-- Failed? Adambro, do you mean that any outcome that does not satisfy you is a failure? "don't consider it appropriate to unblock unless the community can discuss this" <-- Adambro, I'd welcome a detailed examination of my contributions to this community in comparison to your contributions. I helped create and build Wikiversity as an experiment in online collaborative learning. I participate at Wikiversity because I love the process of collaborative learning. You still have not explained why you came to Wikiversity: care to explain that? I'm part of the Wikiversity community and I object to Adambro's effort to exclude me from community discussions. --JWSchmidt 14:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to censorship of my user talk page. --JWSchmidt 14:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"JWSchmidt has been hostile ever since he felt there has been a hostile takeover" <-- I object to placing the label "hostile" on my efforts to improve Wikiversity and support its mission. Discussing abuses of power that are performed by Wikimedia functionaries does not constitute hostility from me. Here are examples of actions that characterize the "hostile takeover" of Wikiversity: publishing false accusations against honest Wikiversity participants, imposing bad blocks and bans on honest Wikiversity participants, performing out-of-process deletion of Wikiversity learning projects, performing emergency desysop procedures when there is no emergency, sysops conspiring, in secret, off wiki, to target honest Wikiversity participants for abuse, sysops who abuse their channel operator tools in #wikiversity-en, disruption of Wikiversity policy development and parallel enforcement of Wikipedia rules at Wikiversity, Wikiversity show trials where unsupported and wild accusations are made against honest Wikiversity participants and the accused is not allowed to offer defense, intimidation of the Wikiversity community by Wikimedia functionaries who make threats against the very existence of the Wikiversity project. I object to such odious practices and as a "reward" for my service to Wikiversity, I am called "hostile" by a few sysops. It should be clear to all honest Custodians what the real problem is here. --JWSchmidt 14:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"even though JWSchmidt is a good person there is nothing more that can be done" <-- Darklama, I think you are ignoring a sensible approach. I never abused my powers as Custodian. Other Wikimedia functionaries have abused their power at Wikiversity. If the Wikiversity community was protected from those who have abused their power at Wikiversity during the past two years then the community could return to its mission and the community would function peacefully as it did from 2006 to 2008. The question is, why to a some sysops prevent Wikiversity from protecting itself against those few functionaries who have abused their power at Wikiversity during the past two years?

I think you have also ignored many sensible approaches for the past few years. You could of simply added a request to have the tools again and started the process to become a custodian again when the tools were removed. I could also object to placing the label "hostile" on what happened a few years ago, but I choose to accept that is your perspective, even if I do not agree with that opinion. -- darklama  15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"the process to become a custodian" <-- Here is my view of the process for becoming a custodian: the process starts when a Wikiversity participant nominates another editor who has participated in Wikiversity learning projects and the creation of Wikiversity learning resources and has demonstrated that they are a trusted member of the community. I don't enjoy the grunt work of being a Custodian, but I have always been willing to help with that work when asked to do so by a wiki community. Hostile takeover is a term from the business world. In that context, "hostile" means "unwelcome". It would be an interesting exercise to magically remove all the threats and intimidation that the Wikiversity community has been subjected to, bring back all the people who were subjected to bad blocks and otherwise driven away from Wikiversity by the abusive actions of Wikimedia functionaries and ask the community members if they object to abuses of power being performed by Wikimedia functionaries. I think I know what the results of such a poll would show. --JWSchmidt 16:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
How do you think the term "Hostile takeover" applies? Who replaced who? Are you the management that was replaced? -- darklama  16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Are you the management that was replaced?" <-- For two years (2006-2008) Wikiversity was a peaceful learning community where the Custodial "block" and "delete" tools were use to deal with vandals and vandalism. Then a few Wikipedians started using anti-vandalism tools against Wikiversity participants. A few Wikipedians started disrupting the process by which Wikiversity policy is developed and in parallel they started imposing Wikipedia rules at Wikiversity. Threats were made against the very existence of Wikiversity in an attempt to prevent Wikiversity community members from resisting the hostile takeover. Rather than make real community members Custodians, outsiders were brought in an made Custodians even when they were policy violators and when they refused to answer questions during the community discussion of their custodianship. A hit man from Wikipedia who came to Wikiversity on a coordinated sockpuppet mission to ban a member of the Wikiversity community was rewarded by being made a custodian. The peaceful "management" style of Wikiversity that had existed for the first two years of the project was disrupted by a few Wikimedia functionaries who abused their power and terrorized the Wikiversity community. Several Wikiversity participants have been subjected to emergency desysop procedures when no emergency existed. This week I was participating in a new initiative to develop Wikiversity policy and I was blocked from editing. The disruption of Wikiversity continues. --JWSchmidt 16:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Would people be questioning whether this was the right or wrong thing to do?" <-- This is a valid question since other Wikiversity participants have also been subjected to bad blocks at Wikiversity. However, I also object to the way other Wikiversity participants have been abused. I don't think the past precedents of abusive actions at Wikiversity performed by Wikimedia functionaries should be used to justify additional abuses of power by sysops, but that's just me, and I've been called a "troll" and it has been suggested that I fuck off and leave the project...with such "civil" language coming from Wikiversity sysops. I get the blocks while the sysops who abuse their power and who are grossly uncivil get off free. Darklama, do you really think that's fair? Is it really so hard to know what is right? --JWSchmidt 14:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to the Wikiversity community to generalize and go on about things from the past that is now moot. You've been going on about being called a "troll" and told to "fuck off" by people that are no longer even sysops, and in a few cases haven't even contributed to Wikiversity for few years now. How is responding to incivility by a few people with incivility fair for anyone else? You may feel that you are being civil, but that can also be true for the people that you feel aren't civil towards you. -- darklama  15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"things from the past that is now moot" <-- It is my view that the Custodial block and deletion tools should be used to deal with vandals and vandalism. I'm continually surprised by the way a few Wikimedia functionaries have used their tools at Wikiversity. It seems strange to me that some people are allowed to call good faith Wikiversity participants "troll" while at the same time they make false accusations of incivility and even block other wiki editors for incivility. It seems strange to me that a Wikiversity sysop would allow his buddy to be grossly uncivil ("fuck off") while at the same time they make false accusations of incivility and block another wiki editor. I think it is worth pointing out such double standards and the damage that has been done by Wikimedia functionaries who allow double standards to guide their use of the "block" tool. As a community, we need to keep discussing such problems until they stop. "responding to incivility by a few people with incivility" <-- Please list on this page any sentence of mine that you think is uncivil. I will be happy to discuss your concerns on this page. Discussion of the abuses of power that are performed by Wikimedia functionaries is not uncivil. Such discussions are part of the normal way that wiki communities protect themselves from people who abuse their positions of trust. I know that some Wikipedians are experts at gaming the system and pretending that it is uncivil to discuss abuses of power, but the Wikiversity community has never adopted the destructive practices of Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"until JWSchmidt is satisfied that the Wikiversity Community understands what he wants for taking back Wikiversity" <-- I suspect that the honest participants of Wikiversity, the people who came to Wikiversity in order to participate in a collaborative learning community, understand what I want. We all want to be allowed to use Wikiversity as it was intended, as an experiment in online learning. The only problem is a few outsiders who, since 2008, have continued to harass honest Wikiversity participants and disrupt the Wikiversity project. I will continue to object as long as those few disruptive Wikimedia functionaries continue to deflect us from the Wikiversity mission by abusing their positions of trust. I was trying to help develop needed Wikiversity policies and provide the Wikiversity community with needed protections against disruptive Wikimedia functionaries, but I was blocked, with the cited reason for my block being the fact that I raised for discussion the fact that abuse of sysop power is a problem at Wikiversity that must be dealt with. The easiest path to helping Wikiversity get back on track would be to allow me to participate in the development of needed policies and restrain sysops from imposing bad blocks and otherwise abusing their power. I object to the idea that Wikiversity:Community Review must be the way to go. I know from past experience that the Wikiversity community will not participate at a witch hunt...when Wikiversity:Community Review is used there is too large a chance that it will only serve the needs of the witch hunters. Important community discussions should be held at Wikiversity:Colloquium, not hidden away on a page that most Wikiversity participants have never visited. "bring up past issues in a nonconstructive way" <-- It is always constructive when good faith wiki participants discuss abuses of power that have been performed by sysops. Such discussions are the natural "wiki way" to deal with abuses of power. It is disruptive when the abusive sysops try to prevent discussion of their actions. Honest Custodians welcome discussion of their actions. It is a strange feature of Wikipedia that discussions of sysop abuse are censored, but the Wikiversity community never adopted that Wikipedia practice. --JWSchmidt 15:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"21st Century concepts of Due Process, Evidence-Based Reasoning, and Scholarly Ethics" <-- I object to the fact that Wikiversity is censored and that the Wikiversity community is being deprived of a chance to benefit from the experience and knowledge of scholars and educators who have been ruthlessly blocked by abusive Wikimedia functionaries who seem quite ignorant of 21st Century concepts of Due Process, Evidence-Based Reasoning, and Scholarly Ethics. --JWSchmidt 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

offensive actions[edit source]

This most recent Talk page discussion is, all by itself, conclusive evidence that, as matters stand, JWSchmidt cannot continue at Wikiversity. I'm not about to add to the many words I've written detailing for JWS his offensive actions, not here, not in a place where it has become obvious that the considerable time it takes will be an utter waste. As can be seen above, he doesn't hear, he doesn't attempt to understand, he merely defends and counterattacks, repeating the offensive behavior over and over. Why he's doing this is beyond me, he gains no advantage by it, he is convincing nobody. I proposed, more than a month ago, I think, that he ask to get his admin tools back if he wants to help Wikiversity. He responded with more of the usual. He doesn't use due process to address his complaints, some of which had, at one time, some legitimate basis. He uses the tools of paranoid polemic, converting single instances into "examples" of vast patterns, treating past problems as if they are ongoing, without ever actually detailing a practical way to undo continuing damage, if any.
As to the above comment about censorship, there are two possible "scholars and educators" who are being excluded: Moulton and Thekohser. Thekohser is in process of returning, I'd say, I give this a reasonable chance, and he's definitely showing cooperation. Moulton has clearly stated in many places that he doesn't want to be unblocked, he prefers, quite literally, to be disruptive, to engage in his drama, for his own educational purposes. In other words, he's participating exactly as he wants to. So what's behind this "deprivation"? Almost nothing except for some sense of instability in this community, caused by the perception of an ongoing battle, when, in fact, the community is now almost completely united, as to those who remain, and is open to the return of others. SBJohnny left, and is staying away because he expects that interference from "on high" will return. I don't think so, and will invite him to return again, but there is only one way to find out about this "on high" business, which is to proceed to handle our own business, considering the legitimate concerns of the WMF, negotiate with them if there are problems, and move on to build the 'versity. --Abd 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"offensive actions" <-- Please list my "offensive actions" on this page, in this page section, so that I can respond to your concerns. I'm not the one who has abused sysop tools; I'm on the defensive here, trying to protect myself and the Wikiversity community from outsiders who have greatly disrupted this project. --JWSchmidt 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"he doesn't hear, he doesn't attempt to understand <-- Please present evidence to support these claims. I hear you and I understand you all too well. Abd, do you really think you are helping the Wikiversity community heal by making this kind of unsubstantiated claim about another editor? I suspect that what you are trying to say is that you do not agree with me when I object to abuses of power performed by Wikimedia functionaries. Objecting to abuses of power is a normal part of protecting a wiki community from abusive sysops. You are free to disagree with me about that, but your disagreement with me does not mean that I can't hear or that I don't "attempt to understand". My understanding would be enhanced if you and Adambro explained your objections to my edits on this page and we could have an adult discussion about your concerns. Rather than do that, Adambro blocked me and you come here to say "JWSchmidt cannot continue at Wikiversity". I remind you that it is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy to call for unjustified blocks and bans. Please present your evidence and let me respond or retract your statement. --JWSchmidt 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"I proposed, more than a month ago, I think, that he ask to get his admin tools back if he wants to help Wikiversity <-- Why is this relevant to the bad block that Adambro imposed on me? --JWSchmidt 19:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"He doesn't use due process to address his complaints" <-- When topics such as abuse of power by Wikimedia functionaries is relevant, I sometimes include mention of them in my edits. Abd, please explain the "due process" that you want me to use. I'm not the one running show trials and witch hunts at Wikiversity, I'm trying to keep myself and others from being subjected to them. Note: this is not Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Why he's doing this is beyond me" <-- I think you are asking why I object when Wikimedia functionaries abuse their power. In my experience, objecting to abuses of power is the first step in protecting a community against abuses of power. --JWSchmidt 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
He uses the tools of paranoid polemic, converting single instances into "examples" of vast patterns <-- I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I suspect you might mean that I'm a scientist. I collect data, organize the data, and make decisions based on patterns in the data. Abd, please list the "vast patterns" you are referring to. I'll then tell you if I have also detected those patterns and we can discuss the data that have led us to see those patterns. --JWSchmidt 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Moulton has clearly stated in many places that he doesn't want to be unblocked, he prefers, quite literally, to be disruptive, to engage in his drama, for his own educational purposes. In other words, he's participating exactly as he wants to" <-- Moulton was participating at Wikiversity constructively. He was then viciously harassed by some Wikimedians. I don't believe that Moulton "prefers to be disruptive" and I think it is not nice to suggest that he does. --JWSchmidt 21:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not engaging in a long discussion here, but Moulton has explicitly stated that his purpose is disruptive -- he believes that this is "educational," and perhaps it is. It's not a suggestion, it's an observation and report. --Abd 05:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Moulton is not allowed to participate at Wikiversity and defend himself and his views makes me physically ill. What is this little learning project called, "How to show the academic world that Wikiversity abuses scholars"? --JWSchmidt 12:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked[edit source]

You have been unblocked per lack of community consensus in addition to a strong conflict of interest between you and the blocking admin, the extreme measure of the block, the way the block was handled, and the desire by the blocking admin to put forth an indef before discussion instead of after.

This is not a support for any of your behavior, and you are warned not to continue with anything that might be seen as going too far to promote your view of various issues, especially those who bring you into conflict with other users. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to open a Community Review on myself. I'm drafting an opening statement for that review. --JWSchmidt 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The first review now exists. I was also asked to open a Community Review on problematic actions. I'm collecting background information for the second review. --JWSchmidt 12:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls do me a favor[edit source]

Could you drop Moulton's email adress (other than, if you know) on my page? -- KYPark [T] 08:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I got his gmail address at least.

CR[edit source]

Some of the recent changes you have made to community review look good. I hope you are able to keep up some of the recent changes that you have been making to the community review that have shifted the focus towards the issues.

With the hope that you are able to keep up the improvements:

  • Please remember to clearly explain why you think an issue is an issue.
  • Please remember to clearly explain the reasoning that led you to make suggestions for preventing problems in the future.

Both will better allow people to follow your train of thought, including people that are not on the same page as you. -- darklama  05:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Beetlebaum[edit source]

If there is some legitimate reason for using this character then fair enough, I don't think you've really explained it yet though, but please don't involve it in community discussions as you did here. I don't think that is going to help matters as it could be seen to be mocking other users which could inflame any situation the discussions are trying to actually resolve. Regarding that specific edit, I am sorry for accidentally reverting it and I quickly reinstated it when I realised. I sometimes edit using my iPod and due to the nature of its interface, it is easy to click on the wrong things by mistake. Adambro 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"mocking other users" <-- Adambro, please explain what you mean, but first read this.
"could inflame any situation" <-- Sometimes I am of two minds about how to respond to an outrage. I believe that stating my full spectrum of responses to capricious sysop action enhances communication, which should be our goal in community discussions.
Your mistake is now a matter for community review.
--the winner..... Beetlebaum 22:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted pages you were interested in.[edit source]

[2]. If you need this by email let me know. I hope this helps. Sorry about the rest. --Abd 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Beetlebaum[edit source]

Please end your use of this account. As far as I can tell, most of your contributions using this account revolve around mocking other users and I think this only serves to exacerbate problems further. Adambro 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Preamble to the Declaration of Indignation:
We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident — That all Scholars are Created Equal and are Endowed by their Creator (and by the WMF Mission Statement) with Certain Unalienable Rights, and that among these are Login, Edit, and the Pursuit of the Ground Truth. -Montana Mouse 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Adam, please resign as a Custodian and end your reign of terror here in the English Wikiversity. As near as I can tell, your role here revolves around indicting, persecuting, and censoring the contributions of other scholars, and I suggest this is the root of the problem there. —Gastrin Bombesin 19:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Neigh! --the winner..... Beetlebaum 23:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Adambro, your bad block of Beetlebaum and out-of-process deletion of the developing Music and learning Wikiversity learning resource was a disruption of both the Wikiversity Mission and the Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation and is now the subject of community review. Adambro why are you disrupting progress towards my learning goals and disrupting the Mission of Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sokal affair[edit source]

Please read this. May I suggest the possibility of a teaching/learning project on it and what it can teach us with regard to debugging problematic organizations? According to , it ought to be a welcome project for some interesting folk. I agree with their objectives, but I very much believe they need to change their methods as they are creating too many enemies for that approach to be sustainable; which by the way is why I'm against Barry's in-your-face methods). WAS 4.250 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

invitations[edit source]

Hi!. I'm new user in Wikiversity. I'll ask you something: I give a course. If I send an invitation to multiple users, do problems occur? Thanks... --Bermanya 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning for incivility[edit source]

[3], edit summary: ‎ (→explain change to proposed blocking policy: misguided attempt to facilitate disruption of the Wikiversity Mission)

This edit summary describes the editor's action as an "attempt to facilitate disruption of the Wikiversity Mission." That crosses the line. ("Misguided" doesn't lessen this, a misguided attempt to commit a crime is still an attempt to commit a crime.) You are free to argue what you were arguing, that alleged policy violators should not participate in making or describing policy, this warning has nothing to do with your position and arguments on that. It has to do with ascribing bad faith to a user as attempting to facilitate disruption. I suggest that you refactor, delete or strike the comment as appropriate, but I presume that you would only be blocked if you repeat similar uncivil behavior after this warning. Please be careful about incivility, I know you are upset about things that happened, and that are happening, and understandably so, but incivility poisons the atmosphere, making it all the more difficult to clean up the problems. Thanks. --Abd 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

the following JWS response paragraph was moved from my User talk page. --Abd 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I don't understand your warning. My edit summary was a description of the topic under discussion, a topic that is relevant to a proposal that is under community review, a proposal for developing needed policy for dealing with past misuse of the block tool. There is nothing uncivil about discussing problematic actions that are disrupting the Wikiversity Mission. "This edit summary describes the editor's action" <-- What editor are you talking about? "attempt to commit a crime" <-- What "crime" are you talking about? "ascribing bad faith to a user" <-- What user are you talking about? "I presume that you would only be blocked if you repeat similar uncivil behavior" <-- What "uncivil behavior" are you talking about? I remind you that calling for unjustified blocks is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Are you making an unjustified call for a block to be imposed on my editing? --JWSchmidt 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling for you to be blocked, and if you had understood the warning, you would know that. I'm greatly concerned that you seem to be unable to understand what is being written to you. That's a real concern for your welfare as for the welfare of the wiki. I am moving this discussion to your Talk page, which is where this discussion should take place.

In your response, you did not look at or quote the problematic words, in spite of them being in front of you and specifically referenced with discussion of the import, including one possible excuse that you might offer for them. The clear incivility was in the edit summary, I did not carefully examine the text itself. I suggested striking, but that you can't, of course, do, I'd forgotten that you can't edit summaries. So you could apologize to the user. And if I am merely reacting to some unintended appearance, you can apologize for the appearance. That is what I do, I hope, and that is what scholars and other civilized people do, routinely. It's pretty simple, JWS. Don't make it complicated. If it is hard for you to understand, recognize that you are having difficulty understanding, ask for help from me or others, especially others, and listen to the explanations, set aside any feelings that you are being attacked. You are not. I'm actually trying to help you become more effective. Do you want that? How would you show that you want that?

The edit summary, let's start there:

[4], edit summary: ‎ (→explain change to proposed blocking policy: misguided attempt to facilitate disruption of the Wikiversity Mission)

Now, since I don't think you are labelling your own edit as a misguided attempt to facilitate disruption, you must be labelling something as such, and that is how your summary will be seen. Who or what could be seen, in context, as perhaps facilitating disruption? Because of the word "attempt," we are talking about a person, not a text.

On the face, most people will assume one of two people: the preceding editor, or the author of the preceding text to which you would be responding. In this case they are the same, and that you were responding to this person is clear because you indented the edit to show that, this was a response within a section, threaded. So you have made the subject of your edit be a "misguided attempt to facilitate disruption...". The "attempt" must be the text to which you were responding, and, then, the "attempt," which is about intention, was that of the editor, Thenub314.

So your summary claims that there is an attempt to "facilitate disruption." Stated as you have stated it, this is a personal attack. You may claim that the policy position advocated by the user would facilitate disruption, that would not have caused a problem. It was your ascription of intention "to facilitate disruption" that crosses the line. Text and policy text can facilitate disruption, but they are not people and cannot be either misguided or attempts, except as the people creating or promoting the text are attempting or misguiding. Here you have ascribed both misguidance (which is borderline uncivil in itself, but not beyond the pale, at least not now!) and an attempt to facilitate disruption, which is.

If we know that a user is attempting to facilitate disruption, should this be evident to the community, we would certainly defend the community against that user, which defense might include measures up to and including a block. You have accused someone of a blockworthy offense, but without any showing of such intention (i.e., that the misguided attempt is to facilitate disruption, rather, than, say, just to improve or make policy practical, even if the effect of that might be disruption.) You are failing to understand why we are urged to assume good faith, which advice -- it's really basic wiki policy -- requires understanding how to do it. It means to place a positive construction on the intentions of people, even if they seem to be opposite in intent, until we actually have proof of a negative intention.

If my explanation seems complicated, it's because I'm anticipating certain possible objections. If there is anything you don't understand, please ask specifically. I will now answer your specific questions.

JWSMy edit summary was a description of the topic under discussion, a topic that is relevant to a proposal that is under community review, a proposal for developing needed policy for dealing with past misuse of the block tool. There is nothing uncivil about discussing problematic actions that are disrupting the Wikiversity Mission.

You may possibly think that, but it doesn't match the actual words you used. Sometimes anger will come out unconsciously in the words that are used when we are consciously thinking something perfectly civil. The remedy is to recognize it in the appearance of the words and apologize for that. If you had no conscious attempt to impugn the good faith of an editor, then apologize for the appearance and move on! Nobody is going to nail you to the wall for allowing subconcious anger -- or simple inadvertent appearance -- to come through.

Tell me straight out, JWS, is it your intention to avoid impugning the good faith of other editors? Here your edit, in situ, appears to do that for a new editor, and it certainly looks like you wrote that because you were upset with what that editor had written. That is precisely the kind of situation where, if you are to survive on Wikiversity much longer, you will need to learn to restrain yourself. I'm sure you won't do it if nobody warns you! I also suspect that you may have become inured to warnings, because you have inferred bad faith from them, and you may even have been correct, but it is a very dangerous situation. There is no shame in error. But there can be shame in refusal to recognize and admit the error. Nobody will hold it against you if you write "Oops! I'll try not to do that again." Consider what would have happened if Ottava, after I blocked him (or before!) had written "Oops!" No disruption at all, he'd be safe from any ensuing process, and he might even still have a grateful mentored probationary custodian. That's all it would have taken. Unfortunately, from behavior elsewhere, I know that this is extremely difficult for Ottava. I'm hoping that *something* can penetrate that wall. So what about you? What you see in others exists in yourself, that's a basic rule that the wise understand. Are you ready for wisdom? Or do you think you have already found it, or do you care?

JWS"This edit summary describes the editor's action" <-- What editor are you talking about?

The editor whom most reasonable people would infer as the actor, i.e., the one writing in pursuit of a goal, an intention, an "attempt to disrupt." Thenub314 Now if that was not your intention, you can say so. But the warning still stands, because the warning is not about your intention, as such, because we cannot ever be sure about those, we only assume good faith, but rather about the "appearance." An appearance of incivility violates incivility policy, JWS, if you think about it. It can't be any other way. I hesitate to give you an example, because in the next item, you show that you get confused by examples, thinking that every aspect of the example -- an analogy -- must apply.

JWS"attempt to commit a crime" <-- What "crime" are you talking about?

The crime in an analogy. Again, perhaps by losing context and focusing on what might be of emotional import for you, i.e., the possibility that I might be accusing you of a crime, or, alternately, that I'm claiming you accused someone else of a criminal intention or action, you miss the meaning. The analogy is between

  • a misguided attempt to disrupt Wikiversity
  • a misguided attempt to commit a crime.

I was anticipating an objection that you did not actually make, i.e., that you would retreat behind "misguided" as a claim that you weren't impugning good faith. I.e., that you would claim that you were only saying that the editor was misguided, not that he was attempting to disrupt. The analogy shows that the language doesn't work that way. A misguided attempt is still an attempt, misguidance is hardly any excuse at all before the law. (Occasionally a judge may consider nobility of intention and reduce consequences, but consequences still exist for the criminal intent.) But this may be moot.

JWS"ascribing bad faith to a user" <-- What user are you talking about?

It is possible, JWS, that you are unable to recognize how your language will be read by others. It's a particular disability related to Attention Deficit Disorder. Which I have, by the way, so I know it well. It takes effort to overcome, and sometimes more than that. All the more reason why we should carefully and patiently go over these things. That might be what it takes. But if you blow a fuse because I'm supposedly "accusing" you of some "disability," well, your loss. I'm not insisting on a diagnosis, just making an honest suggestion based on my own experience and what I know about what can cause the symptoms I'm seeing. I say this for your benefit, and if anything here is offensive to you, let me know and I'll try to redact it. This is not an attack.

This is not an attack <-- <-- <--

JWSI presume that you would only be blocked if you repeat similar uncivil behavior" <-- What "uncivil behavior" are you talking about? I remind you that calling for unjustified blocks is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Are you making an unjustified call for a block to be imposed on my editing? --JWSchmidt 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, this is not a call for you to be blocked. It is what it was labelled, a warning. Any editor may issue a warning. Generally, JWS, you have failed to avail yourself of due process, instead repeating voluminous complaints in places where they are ineffective even if valid. In my more paranoid moments, I think that you are maintained as a token opposition, so that the functional oligarchy here can point to how tolerant they are, knowing that you will be completely ineffective in your opposition, whereas serious, cogent, and effective critics are banned. This is not a place to consider those critics, and I'm simply disclosing what I think "in my more paranoid moments." In fact, I believe in general that wiki problems are due to inadequate structure, not "bad people." And the solution is to develop better structure, not to attack and blame "bad people." The people whom you might think of as "abusive," I would prefer to remain part of a healthy community, even as custodians. They need guidance and restraint from the community. Not from me, by the way, I'm just a servant myself, but from the community. If what I write serves the community, it will ultimately back it; if not, I'll stop, it will become clear.

So when you have seen recusal failure by a custodian, have you placed a formal warning on the custodian's page, and then proceeded to request a block or have you otherwise, initiated Custodian feedback if the warning is violated? Are you afraid that you would be blocked if you did this? You might be, but probably only because of your long history, it would be used as an excuse, so, for a while, you should be quite careful. Basically, shut up until you are ready to take effective action. That's not a "shut up" of "your opinions are not valued," it is a tactical "shut up" of someone who understands your situation and is giving you tactical advice. I've been given that advice many times by my friends, and I always consider it. Whether or not I actually shut up depends on conditions, but, I'll point out, an inability to discipline one's own action is the major factor that keeps activists from being effective. If there are people who want to control this wiki, contrary to the purpose, they would certainly prefer that you be ineffective. You might notice something. I've been threatened with a block or ban because of my "disruption," which in scope and "volume" is minor compared to yours. Why the warnings of me, when the same people are not warning you? Indeed, the one who threatened to block me is the one who *unblocked* you. We should assume good faith, but that does not require us to be stupid and notice what might be serving, for example, an unconscious agenda. Custodians are human beings.

(I'm not alleging any specific intention for any specific person, these phenomena exist subconsciously, in affinities and unexamined preferences, and I will not be "attacking" any "cabal." I will be examining individual actions and seeking community consensus regarding them, through minimally disruptive process. Any such examination involves some level of disruption, but it is necessary, or we cannot move beyond the intelligence of an individual to the greater intelligence of an active, cooperating community.)

I'm not "making a call for you to be blocked." I'm warning you that if your behavior -- whether or not your intention is "pure" -- continues, you are likely to be blocked, and the notice here is the required preceding warning. I'm not a custodian, so I cannot block you. Because of the history, I'd probably not block you myself, I'd go, just like any other user, to Request custodian action, and I'd certainly notify you. The actual decision would be made by a closing custodian. This is not punitive, it does not mean that I think you are "bad" or anything like that. And you can do exactly the same thing for any abuse or policy violation you see, including mine. I might be uncivil on occasion, it's human. I hope someone will warn me if I am! Start following policy yourself, JWS. You might find that it actually works. If you need any further explanation, let me know.

One further piece of advice. If you still don't understand this, or you think it is hostile, please find someone you trust and ask the person to explain it to you. That can work miracles. I've used this to heal a rift with an admin on Wikipedia who was trying to get me banned. He became my friend and supporter. We can easily get stuck in ourselves, it is only human. Together, we can do much better. Good luck.--Abd 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, JWS, I now see an alternate interpretation of your edit summary. I'd neglected the first part: explain change to proposed blocking policy. This interpretation could shift the "blame," though the appearance I mentioned still stands. (And that was just the section title, it isn't what you wrote, I wrote that title to explain a change that I had made.) It doesn't change the substance of my warning, it is merely, then, that you would be impugning the good faith of the author of the proposed change, instead of that specific editor (and that makes the indent problematic). I'm the primary author, though not the initiating author. The others would be Adambro and Darklama and also Thenub314. If you are going to assert disruptive intention, it is crucial that you do so through process. You have not initiated such process. The Community Reviews you have started are shotgun affairs that cannot determine a specific desysop, which policy requires begin with Custodian feedback, and Custodian feedback, my interpretation, must be preceded by direct contact, which would include a warning. For an ordinary user, a Community review would be appropriate, but it should also be preceded by a specific warning and specific disregard. That's my interpretation of wiki common law as applied here. Outside of due process, asserting bad faith for an editor is a serious policy violation. Do not repeat that, and if you do, by mistake, promptly revert or strike, it could avoid a block.

One more process detail. Because you might see me as an adverse editor, and I have argued that warnings by adverse editors could be less effective than warnings by clearly neutral ones or ones clearly friendly to the warned editor, I would insert a preceding process before taking a new violation to RCA. I'd encourage another editor to warn you or to confirm this one. That might happen without an additional action if someone sees this, but I'm not going to solicit it unless I see a new violation. So ... you will have an additional warning as far as whatever I will personally do. I still think you are at risk of block at any time if you continue as you have, and I think that if you take this seriously, both you and the wiki will benefit greatly. --Abd 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The following response was placed on my Talk page by JWS. I request that he respond in situ, as spread response like that makes it even harder to follow discussions. I have moved his response here, and I will consider response here. --Abd 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I don't understand your warning. My edit summary was a description of the topic under discussion, a topic that is relevant to a proposal that is under community review, a proposal for developing needed policy for dealing with past misuse of the block tool. There is nothing uncivil about discussing problematic actions that are disrupting the Wikiversity Mission. "This edit summary describes the editor's action" <-- What editor are you talking about? "attempt to commit a crime" <-- What "crime" are you talking about? "ascribing bad faith to a user" <-- What user are you talking about? "I presume that you would only be blocked if you repeat similar uncivil behavior" <-- What "uncivil behavior" are you talking about? I remind you that calling for unjustified blocks is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Are you making an unjustified call for a block to be imposed on my editing? --JWSchmidt 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"you did not look at or quote the problematic words" <-- How do you know what I looked at? "The clear incivility was in the edit summary" <-- If it is "clear" then you should be able to explain why the edit summary is not civil. As I explained, the edit summary is a description of the problem that was under discussion and there is nothing incivil about discussing serious problems that are disrupting Wikiversity. "you could apologize to the user" <-- What user? "some unintended appearance" <-- What "appearance" are you talking about? "feelings that you are being attacked" <-- What feeling are you talking about? "I'm actually trying to help you become more effective. Do you want that? How would you show that you want that?" I have not noticed that you were trying to help me. What evidence is available to me that you have tried to help me? "Do you want that?" <-- I have not asked for your help. "How would you show that you want that?" <-- I would ask for your help. "Who or what could be seen, in context, as perhaps facilitating disruption?" <-- The topic I was discussing was the proposal that the Wikiversity community protect itself from people who misuse the block tool. It is misguided for people who have already disrupted Wikiversity by misusing the block tool to write a blocking policy that perpetuates their ability to disrupt Wikiversity by misusing the block tool. "we are talking about a person" <-- I was talking about the on-going process by which people with a conflict of interest have been altering the proposed blocking policy. "most people will assume one of two people" <-- That sounds like your assumption that other people will make the same erroneous assumption that you made. the "attempt," which is about intention, was that of the editor, Thenub314. <--Wrong. "this is a personal attack" <-- Wrong. I was discussing a disruptive process that is under community review. It was your ascription of intention "to facilitate disruption" that crosses the line. <-- If a few rogue sysops have a history of causing disruption by misusing the block tool and they attempt to create a new policy that allows them to further disrupt Wikiversity by continuing to misuse the block tool then it is clear that the intent is to create conditions that will allow the disruptive behavior to continue. The Wikiversity community needs to discuss this problem and defend itself against continuing disruption caused by misuse of the block tool. There is nothing uncivil about members of a community discussing disruption of its Mission and how to prevent the disruption. A proposed policy can be misguided when it will have the effect of disrupting the Mission of the project. Imposing unjustified blocks and calling for unjustified blocks disrupts Wikiversity and is misguided. "subconcious anger" <-- what "subconcious anger" are you talking about? "Tell me straight out, JWS, is it your intention to avoid impugning the good faith of other editors?" <-- "impugning good faith" sounds oxymoronic and I always intend to avoid illogical and contradictory actions. In this case, we are discussing a situation where a few rogue sysops have disrupted Wikiversity by misusing the block tool and violating the civility policy. I was discussing how the Wikiversity community can protect itself from further disruption arising from misuse of the block tool. It is my intention to defend the Wikiversity community and the Wikiversity Mission from further misuse of the block tool, violations of Wikiversity policy and disruption of Wikiversity. "it certainly looks like you wrote that because you were upset with what that editor had written" <-- I don't see how it appears that way unless you made a made faith assumption about my edit. "So what about you? What you see in others exists in yourself, that's a basic rule that the wise understand. Are you ready for wisdom? Or do you think you have already found it, or do you care?" <-- I just want Wikiversity to return to what it was from 2006 to 2008, a peaceful learning community where I could collaborate with my friends on our learning projects. Maybe you could make a learning project about your personal philosophy, wisdom, "basic rules" and topics that are of interest to you. "An appearance of incivility violates incivility policy" <-- I could claim that many edits are uncivil and demand an apology, but I would first explain how the edit actually was uncivil. I believe that the "appearance of incivility" you have described indicates a failure by you to assume good faith with respect to my edit. Second try: "ascribing bad faith to a user" <-- What user are you talking about? "So when you have seen recusal failure by a custodian, have you placed a formal warning on the custodian's page, and then proceeded to request a block or have you otherwise, initiated Custodian feedback if the warning is violated? Are you afraid that you would be blocked if you did this?" <-- No. No. "shut up" <-- Is telling me to shut up part of your warning against incivility? "Why the warnings of me, when the same people are not warning you?" <-- You would best ask such questions of people who disrupt Wikiversity by making threats and unjustified calls for blocks and bans...I have no understanding of why such disruptive people even come to Wikiversity in the first place or remain here, relentlessly disrupting the project. "Custodians are human beings" <-- History shows that some custodians are sockpuppets, so several Custodian accounts could be used by a single human being. "Start following policy yourself, JWS." <-- If you are insinuating that I don't follow policy then please list the edits I have made that violate policy. "you would be impugning the good faith of the author of the proposed change" <-- Wrong. I've explained what my edit summary means. You bad faith assumptions about what I meant are all wrong. "my interpretation of wiki common law" <-- I don't know what you are talking about. "asserting bad faith for an editor is a serious policy violation. Do not repeat that" <-- If you are insinuating that I "assert bad faith" then list the edit where you think I have done that and then we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit source]

My support here is based on my no longer having confidence that you would bother to contribute here. It is partly based on your way of describing the community here and the fact that you have an alternative site that allows you to be with Moulton. What would you contribute if you stayed? There seems to be a lot of bitterness, focusing on the past, and the rest. There seems little inclination to move on. That is all I ever really asked from Moulton, and all I really want from you.

Is it really that horrible to bury things in the past and to just deal with things as they are now? The strain on you alone should suggest that it isn't worth continuing in that manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't return to the way things were. Things don't work like that. You can only move forward, not backward. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Official policies[edit source]

Hi JWSchmidt. Following on from a recent discussion which seems related, I note that in September 2008 you added betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En to Template:Official policies. Looking at your contributions at the time, both here and on beta, I can't find any discussion in which the community decided this should be considered an official English Wikiversity policy. Could you clarify exactly what were the circumstances which prompted you to label this as an official policy? Should it still be labelled as such? Thanks. Adambro 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links for the Foundation mandate and the various Wikiversity community forums where the research guidelines was discussed? -- darklama  21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Don't worry about policies and guidelines, start working on things and let the policies come in later" seems to be contrary to your claim of a Foundation mandate. Can you provide a link to where the Foundation mandate was made and what was said that you took for a Foundation mandate? Do you know if the 6 month review that the Special Projects Committee was suppose to do ever took place? I noticed the Special Projects Committee that was to oversee Wikiversity became inactive in 2007. If the SPC 6 month review took place, do you have a link to where I can read it? -- darklama  00:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I'm only interested in understanding your motivations and conclusions. What the Foundation staff thinks at the moment isn't part of my inquiry. Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate? Anthere and other members of the Special Projects Committee suggested in the same email discussion that NPOV should be a fundamental part of research at Wikiversity. What conclusions lead you to believe that the Foundation mandated a collaborative research policy, but that NPOV was not part of the Foundation mandate for collaborative research? Why did you ignore James Hare's call to work on resources and let policies come later? You say that policies were needed due to a Foundation mandate. How do you know that the proposals you put forward as policies satisfied any Foundation mandate if you unaware of any 6 month review? -- darklama  13:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You believe there was a Foundation mandate, but because you did not ask there are also no facts to back your claim of a Foundation mandate. I believe anyone can look at the email and can conclude there wasn't a Foundation mandate as well, and I believe to believe so is just as reasonable.

That statement seems to suggest that you still hold the believe that the Foundation mandated development of a research policy.

Two days after his call you begin making policy, that suggests you ignored his call. -- darklama  15:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that you did the best you could. My concern is that you made policy on your own without the community's consent or consensus. I believe some conflicts could have been avoided, if that hadn't been done. Suggesting a correlation isn't a bad faith assumption. I'd have to be assuming that you had bad intentions before I was making bad faith assumptions. Instead of answering why you ignored James Hare, you asked for evidence, and I provided the evidence that suggests you did. Now you are avoiding the question by suggesting that I'm assuming bad faith. I think a lot of people at this point would assume there must be a reason why you are avoiding the question. I think a lot of people would assume the reason is due to either a guilty conscience, or because you have something to bad to hide. As for me, I'll just keep asking questions. Why don't you want to answer "why did you ignore James Hare's call to let policies come later"? Do you want to avoid people understanding your motivations? Do you want people to avoid examining the reasons for turning proposals into policy? Do you want people to speculate? Do you want people to make assumptions about you? Do you care if people make assumptions? Do you care if people act on assumptions? Do you not remember your motivations? Do you not remember your reasons for turning proposals into policy? Are you unable to explain why proposals you turned into policy should be followed? -- darklama  12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure Anthere's email and what Anthere wrote in the email are facts. However Anthere never in the email refers to their comments as a Foundation mandate which is also a fact. What you think Anthere's means in his email is an interpretation and not a fact. What you think of Anthere's email and how you interpret Anthere's email are facts about you and not facts about Anthere' email. You never asked Anthere if it was a Foundation mandate which can be an assumed fact because you responded with "No" when asked "Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate?" You don't know that Anthere's comments were a Foundation mandate is a reasonable conclusion from your answer. That the Special Projects Committee was to review Wikiversity in 6 months from its creation is also a fact that you and I seem to agree on. Another fact is you wrote that "one of the major discussion was an IRC meeting held, shortly after the deadline for completing the research policy." Wikiversity wasn't shutdown which is also a fact. I think a reasonable conclusion drawn from the fact Anthere never in the email refers to their comments as a Foundation mandate, the fact that a 6 month review of Wikiversity was to happen, your statement that discussion happened after the deadline, and the fact Wikiversity wasn't shutdown, is that there was no Foundation mandate. Please identify and explain any mistaken assumptions you think I've made.

You wrote, "I've looked back at the Wikiversity edit history and #wikiversity-en chat logs and I suspect that I had no idea who Mr. Hare was and I simply paid more attention to Cormaggio's repeated calls for developing research guidelines." You could of said that before when I asked why you ignored Mr Hare's email. Do you agree that Wikiversity participants have a duty to ensure that pages marked as policy accurately represent what the Wikiversity community wants? -- darklama  21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to know what the right context is any more and this isn't about lacking trust. For me this hasn't been about who is right or wrong, but about whether what happened in the past is still good for Wikiversity today. I only asked questions about a Foundation mandate because over the last two years you appear to be suggesting that Wikiversity policies shouldn't be questioned and subjected to review because of some Foundation mandate. My questions about the Foundation mandate is only an attempt to understand your argument/reasoning. I'm interest in moving forward, but your arguments/reasoning seems to be reflecting on what happened in the past, which I think keeps Wikiversity from moving forward and I guess it seems like Wikiversity cannot move beyond that until your reflections on the past is understood by people that weren't there. Right now you seem to be suggesting that only someone with historical knowledge of the context in which things happened is able to make an informed decision on whether policies like the research policy is still good for Wikiversity today.

IRC chat logs have been published in the past when people consented like the IRC discussion that lead to using Custodian as the name for the sysop group. Using the same arguments you use today, one could say that the decisions for what is or is not mandatory were made in secret off-wiki discussions. Haven't you been a strong advocate that decisions shouldn't be made off-wiki? Did your attitude change since than, or do you not remember?

As for examples, lets use a favorite of yours. You say the block and rollback tools should only be used for obvious vandalism. Please explain why you believe the block and rollback tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism. -- darklama  00:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By "what is or is not mandatory" I am referring to the Foundation mandate that you wrote was discussed off-wiki and you wrote is needed to understand the context of Anthere's email. One could say the off-wiki discussion of the Foundation mandate was purposely decided off-wiki in secret because people knew what they wanted to do would disrupt the natural development of the Wikiversity wiki and would be contested had that discussion been made by way of on-wiki community discussion. So why didn't you object to such a off-wiki decision? What I mean is "Did your attitude about decisions being made off-wiki change since the off-wiki decision that you wrote took place and that you wrote provides the context for the Foundation mandate?"

There is a game show called Jeopardy, where the answer is given and where the contestants guess the question. Your answers about rollback and blocks suggestions you were answering the questions "When should rollback be used?" and "What is the block policy?" I didn't ask those questions. I asked you to explain why rollback and blocks should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism. How is the current pages that discuss rollback and blocks important to your explanation of why rollback and block tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism? Quoting pages doesn't explain your reasons for believing rollback and block tools should continue to be only used for obvious vandalism. If you don't believe the rollback and block tools should only be used for vandalism please elaborate further. If you believe the rollback and block tools should only be used for vandalism please also elaborate further. -- darklama  14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"... as constituting instructions and a mandate. I would not say that research guidelines were mandatory. I do believe that in order to support research projects at Wikiversity it is useful to have research guidelines." Now you've confused me. Mandatory and mandate mean similar things. A mandate is an authoritative and official command or instruction. Mandatory means required due to an authoritative and official command or instruction. Suggesting that one is true, but not the other doesn't make sense to me. Please elaborate on what you mean.

I am referring to:

Using your recent arguments, for months "the Foundation mandate" and the development of research guideline is what was purposely decided off-wiki in secret in the discussions/meetings that happened before and after Anthere's email.

You wrote, "I don't know why anyone would believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism." Over the past 2 years comments by you suggest that you believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism. You should be clearer about your position and what you mean in the future. -- darklama  17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask anyone at the time that the "Foundation mandate" was announced or during the discussions on the research guideline that happened before and after Anthere's email, whether Wikiversity might be restricted from having research projects if no effort was made to develop a research guideline right away?

I'm not concerned with how Special Projects Committee did their work. I'm concerned with understanding your reasoning and arguments. If I've understood recent arguments by you correctly, a public meeting is still "secret" because the meeting wasn't held on-wiki where the Wikiversity community could participate in discussion and in making decisions about the development of a research guideline and whether a research guideline was wanted right away, and that could be construed to mean that the Wikiversity community was purposely left out to prevent the Wikiversity community from being able to object.

You wrote, "Many vandals have been blocked, so I tend to emphasize the use of blocks for vandals." I believe your tendency to emphasize the use of blocks for vandals is why people might believe that you think blocks must only be used for vandalism. Maybe you should put more emphasize on what you actually believe rather than on what you see as the general use cases in the future. I doubt that anyone has blocked or proposed to block anyone to end a discussion or a debate. I can say with absolute certainty that I have never blocked or proposed to block anyone as a way to end a discussion or debate. If you were able to discuss and debate, like you and I are doing now, within group discussions and debates, I would see less need to block you too.

You wrote, "For blocks other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings, discussion and community consensus for the block before a block is imposed." I believe several custodians disagree that community consensus is needed before a block is imposed for reasons other than obvious vandalism. I believe the custodians that disagree that community consensus is needed before a block, agree that community consensus can happen after a block if a person requests an unblock. Please explain why you believe that community consensus should be required before imposing a block for reasons other than obvious vandalism. I believe Custodians should be trusted to make reasonable blocks that prevent Wikiversity from being disrupted. I think requiring Custodians to discuss before blocking would prevent Custodians from preventing Wikiversity from being disrupted. Some Custodians have tried to address the concern that community consensus is needed by proposing new policies. If the Wikiversity community agrees with the proposals than there would be community consensus for other reasons besides obvious vandalism too, which would address the need for community consensus and reduce the need to get community consensus each time. Please explain why you believe proposing a policy to obtain community consensus for additional reasons to block is unacceptable to you. If you believe proposing policy to obtain community consensus for additional reasons is acceptable please elaborate. If you believe proposing policy to obtain community consensus for additional reasons is unacceptable please elaborate further. -- darklama  01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Probationary custodians[edit source]

What does being listed or not at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians have to do with anything? Does having never been listed at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians mean Wikiversity policy is not understood? Where in policy is being listed at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians a requirement? Please quote the part of the policy text where being listed at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians is required. -- darklama  21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dramaturgy etc[edit source]

Please stop misusing Wikiversity by creating pages such as Dramaturgy which aren't really legitimate learning resources no matter how much you may protest that they are. If you are unable to stop such behaviour yourself you will be blocked to stop it continuing. Adambro 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

JWS, please respect this ban, as much as you can -- it is improperly vague -- even if you do not agree with it. I have warned Adambro that his action blocking Beetlebaum was recusal failure, and his threat to block you here, though he is clearly involved and should thus recuse, is the same. Please allow him time to consider this and to reverse his actions, including retracting this warning, before making a fuss about it. Thanks. For reference, Dramaturgy --Abd 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reaction Theory[edit source]

Dear JWSchmidt! I don't know why I have been referred to you. But it is probably obvious that I am quite unaware of how things work at Wikiversity or this kind of communities. I did not intend to edit the research page. But I did not find another way to transfer my knowledge to let it see you and deside if it qualifies as a 'new knowledge'. I hoped that you would simply ignore the edit and, realising my dilemma, either tell me how to start an original research or if it doesn't qualify what my options are. I choose this way because if I try to tell you what I have you would not know what I am talking about. And more likely you would only tell me where I could possibly have more success. Options which I probably have already considered but not accepted. I choose Wikiversity because of its accessibility around the world, quickness of distribution and as a place of feedback. This theory is put together from logical conclusions of common knowledge. It is intended to open some POVs and to be elaborated on. Therefore it is not a lecture but if researched on could have some interesting results. For this it needs to be opened to the public. If you cannot do that for me then please be specific where I can find how to start an original research. Everything else I can and will learn later. Thank You for answering Martin Leonar Martin Lenoar 15:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear JWSchmidt! It seem that you have reversed my misplaced edit and you had to do it again. Thank you for watching. I put it into the page you suggested but wrongly thought that Martin Lenoar:Research and Wikipedia:Original Research had the same meaning. My problem if I get too many possibilities (help)and have to study them all at once. Since you are interested in ideas how somebody learns better or faster then consider that the attension span is short and the best way to learn is to get the right answer within that attention span. But we can talk about this later. What happens now to the theory I put into the User:Martin Leonar/Reserach? I am under the impression that you are still working on how to handle 'original research' or 'new knowledge'. It does not make sense to place knowledge under commercial limitations. Everything we know and use has been made up some time by somebody. I placed this in the 'Summary' but do not know what effect this has. --Martin Lenoar 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Raction[edit source]

Dear JWS! Thank you for reading AC/RAC. Your observation is not surprising. Actually it startet for another reason which got me into Artificial Intelligence and Evolution. It started about 2000 and they way it evolved is reflected in the way I structured the theory. The basic thought, which got me into the right direction (or so I think), was that if you need real intelligence than you have to ask the only one who has created one so far - nature. So I looked out the window and I got answers. This is also what many other people have done and many people came close to where I came but they always seem to just could not make a final connection and they started to fill in the gaps with fantasies. I realized this when I was quite far into the theory and also pretty sure that I was onto something. I startet to research so I would not 'reinvent the wheel'. But every where I looked or listend to there was never a connection between movement and the explanation of evolution. I also came across 'The Symbolic Species' and I have the same opinion, language is the only thing what sets animals and humans apart. But what was always rejected (until recently) is that there needs to be a language (communication) in smallest living species or even atoms that evolution can even happen. There are many scientist who think that whatever is the all encompassing answer to life must be something very simple. The AC/RAC theory seem to fall into that category. Therefore it will be enlightening for many which can not make sense of other theories but it will also spark much opposition whos theories are based on fantasy. I think that it is unnecessary to have big discussions or fights of what is right or if it will lead to something. Simply give the thought to everyone and let them do whatever they want with it. And if the feedback can be placed again into one place and made accessible to every one than it will be very fast obvious if the theory is on the right track or not, it might even steer itself into the right direction. I think that Wikiversity would be the right place to try such an approach. --Martin Lenoar 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear JWS! On your second question I am not sure what you suggest. Is it that you think it is better to split the AC/RAC theory up or do you want to add sections to it so that it looks like a wiki webpage? Sections might be helpful for certain categories or uses. What I want to pass on is a whole picture of a possibility. If this possibility is turning into a reality than it would be much to big for any category. But it would naturally split up into many categories. And it would be equaly naturally to wait what is happening, and then add to other ones or create new categories as the neccesity arises. All what is needed is to make people aware that it exists. Which can be easily done with one or two links from other close related categories. This is all the help people need to make up their minds. If they get the whole picture which AC/RAC has to offer then it should be easy to make a decision if it is 'just a nice theory, but not for me' or if they get excited about it. If they get exited than I a am sure they will know or be able to find a way to participate, ask questions or research the subject. Therefore most sections added would only confuse with help which is only placed there because of a good intention. I have the experience all the time and you saw the effect of it. AC/RAC is not a learning subject yet. It might become one. It has to establish itself first. It is also not a subject which ask for collaboration. It actually would be disastrous if somebody would just go in and change its contens and nobody else would see what was originally supplied. Wikiversity seem to have a feature which enables to prevent a page to be edited on. I am not familiar yet with it. And as you might realise your help is directed on how pages can be easily edited. Which is not what I need to know now. I realise that you are very proud of the solution you created and I agree with you but also I think you have realised that this solution cannot be just the only one you use. I am not sure if you have already another complementary solution and if not than my case might give you the opportunity to look at it from a different POV. --Martin Lenoar 02:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear JWS! I don't know if I should thank you or scold you. Maybe I should thank you for taking such a keen interrest but it is inappropriate not to wait until you have my full answers. Apparently you read the first answer and did not expect a second. Of course not because I didn't know either that I will make two anwers. Even then you should have waited for an answer first before you started editing. And with that you proved my point even before I had the chance to tell it to you. It is not wise to let other people edit your work if they do not care to find out all the circumstances. E.g. you should know your word processing program well enough that you should have suspected that if I had my theory structured and in different pages send down that it all would be leveled out. You should have seen that structure when you edited the page. And if you would have cared for my work then you would have recreated this structure which would really have been a great help. Also what you try to tell with your headlines is not what I want to say. With other words don't place your POV over mine. There is a note under which says that if I don't want my work to be edited than I should not place it there. So where do I have to place my work so that nobody will edit it? To make you a bit more careful of your judgement of my work let me give you an example. You say we might have the same oppinion of AI. Well, do you think that it is possible to write a computer program in three weeks which can create true intelligence? I do it! The reason why I think it is possible is the same reason the AC/RAC theory tries to make obvious why the evolution works. I worked it all out from common knowledge therefore there are no other references then what everyone with a little higher education already knows. The problem is not that the knowledge is not availabel but that we place the restriction on it that if it is not very complicated than it cannot be real. It seems, lukily, that I don't have this restriction. --Martin Lenoar 06:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reaction[edit source]

I appreciate that you try to help me. And I understand that in a case like mine sometime it is the best to do it by action. Which is usualy for me, because of my language barrier, a very good way to learn. But it is not my doing that the page is as unreadable as it is. I didn't just dump a bunch of text, it is your word processing program which does that. I saw that if I edit the page than suddenly all the structure I had supplied is there again. But when I save it, all is turned into a uniform mass of text. So please try to respond to this problem an tell me how can I keep the page readable in the form I intended to! I tried to use the icons above but did not succeed. Then we can section it more (or make subpages) if you think that it is necessary. What collaboration concerns is that I am not against it and I respect its usefulness. I was going to suggest too that we could make two versions, one, the original, not to be edited and on to be edited. But what I want to make sure is that everybody who is refered to the AC/RAC theory sees first the unedited (original) version. Then collaboration can start because everybody has had a chance to make up his mind from the same basic, like everybody learns the same thing in school. It would also be more useful to the people who choose not to collaborate but find it interresting and worth of research, which would bring them to the collaborated version. It would also create the possibility of two types of feedback. One which brings an immediate change, through collaboration (edition), and others which are there but can be selected by individuals to use in their own research. I am not sure what kind of a role discussions would play. So please tell me what the possibilities are there. --Martin Lenoar 15:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Áction/Reaction[edit source]

Dear JWS! Apparently something happend and I got an idea when I looked at the page where the sysops are going at each others throat. I hope that you are still with me. Because I was able to refer my requests and worries to you and you almost got me where I needed to be. If you did not edit the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page the way it is now then please look at it and tell me if it appears to be what I claimed or wanted to be. And if you can make some sense out of the A/R theory then please give me your oppinion on how it could fit best into Wikiversity (Category) and how Wikiversity can help me to reach my goal. --Martin Lenoar 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reaction[edit source]

Good idea! I was going to suggest something in that direction. E.g. that you finish the page to a full grown Wiki page with feedback, discussion and whatever goes with it and then show me how it works. I take it as a good sign that you are willing to put your name on it. Or is it a dangerous sign!?

You placed some links to other Wiki pages which are helpful to explain what is processed. But I do not see yet a link which comes from other Wiki projects. As far as I know only 3 people know of that page. Have you had an idea to which project it could be linked to as an addition of possibilities?

I have added a glossary part for CEM and UP. This should prove to you that I am the person who wrote that theory. Actually I have already gone much further than this and only in the last half a year have I condensed my work to pass on the possibilities which I think are there. So when you ask me for examples for EMs than there are many (like UP-unions,atoms, molecules, cells, humans, planets, stars, galaxies). I put some into the text which have mostly the feature which I want to explain. But if there are too many then there will be some which do not fit as well and will only spark discussions about some minor detail but do not lead to anything (my oppinion). So I do not mind you put them in but think about that. The future will tell if they are necessary or not. --Martin Lenoar 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reaction[edit source]

Also consider this:
This theory is mostly passed on to get people to find examples in reality which more or less prove that what is described here actually happens. If you try to help people with examples than you suggest what makes sense to your world but not necessarily to theirs. And if they get the impression that you 'know' what you are talking about then they will not bother to look any further and use your example to prove the theory. If I would have been impressed in this way than I would never have developed the A/R theory.
I want to pass on the awareness that explanations can be simply gaind by piecing together what can be sensed now without the need for a theory (the answers are already there). To show the way how I did it and how it can be used to find other real knowledge. Which is probably more important than to prove the A/R theory.
--Martin Lenoar 02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reaction[edit source]

What makes me keep away from offered predefined help is that it is usually very detailed and therefore includes help which is not relevant at the moment and is only confusing because I would have to work through it and ignore usually most of it until I get to the part which relates to my question. And basically my experience is that there is no such part. I would have to figure it out from all the other information I get. Therefore I prefer to converse with a human being to try to get to the point quicker.
But here another problem arises: the words I use do not have the same meaning any more or their meaning is enlarged to fit into the local circumstances. Which confuses the person which listens to me and makes me give the impression that he does not respond to what I think that I ask.
A sample of the confusing help is your referral to Wikiversiti:Namespace. There the problem seem to be that it does not refer to 'new knowledge' into which I would categorize the A/R theory. Already there 'categorize' has a different meaning. Since I came already across a note which statet that you are still working on 'new knowledge' then that its not showing up is understandable. For that it is already simpler to refer to the picture on Wikiversity:Namespace.
For me the A/R theory does not fit under the 'school' namespace. A school for me is something where something is being tought which has been established and proven already. The A/R-T is neither. But it is a topic which touches many schools. Therefore it could fit under 'department' which could open up venues to the subjects which the schools teach. But it does not have any projects or lessons (Subpages) because again it is not established and proven.
The establishment or prove of the A&R-T will rely on the feedback (response). Which will define what course the A/R-T will take.
The only educational value the A/R-T has at the moment (which should qualify it for Wikiversity) is to get science back to the good old way to learn direct from nature without being sidetract by fantasy (theory). Galileo is the best example. He looked at how things work in nature and created machines which had to wait until the right technology was available to build them. The opposite example is Einstein. As long as he kept to reality (nature) he figured the formula for life. But as soon as he used fantasy to answer remaining questions then he could never prove his theories which followed. And neither could any one else. With other words before 1800 science was held back by the lack of technology now it is held back by fantasy.
Then there is the question of 'editing'. If the same thing is refered to from different places then it would be a good practice (most critical in computer programming) to create a central place where every change to this thing is made. Which then is used to change every occurence of that thing. Otherwise the program would end up to try to refer to the same thing but get different meanings at different occurences. E.g. if you change the name of a person only on one page of a 500 page novel then nobody would know to whom this new name refers to and the atmosphere, the novel has created, would be destroid. If you want to use editing as a tool to help collaboration then I don't know its effects but if editing is arbitrarily allowed wherever a subject is disected because of other reasons then I strongly object to that. Because it invites to 'edit' a small section without making the necessary changes in other sections to which parts of that section refer.
Maybe I should also mention this, since a personal introduction is so high on the agenda. I am not a critic but an observer. Which means I am standing outside and refer to what I see. Which includes if it works or not and why, but not if it is 'right' or 'wrong'. Therefore my observations are never personal or used to change the status quo. If somebody wants it this way, fine, but I reserve my right to stay outside. Since I believe that you are one of the people which build Wikiversity you would be the right person to tell all this. And since you also describe yourself as a science geek (I take that as 'science encompasses your life') that would make it even more interesting. E.g. when scientist refer to life in the evolutionary way then they mean life on earth, while I always include the whole universe, which is quite confusing.--Martin Lenoar 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reactio[edit source]

I did not simply reject the help Wikiversity offers. I have gone through a lot, specifically original research, learning and the policies, and whatever might be connected if relevant. Because I needed to know if I am at the right place. In contrast to Wikimedia, Wikiversity tried to assure that it is interrested in new ways to teach, learn or research. But you still expect that all of this is done with disclosure of references, honesty and reveal of possible controversies.
Now I am glad that I could forward my data and you were able to read it.
Disclosure of references
As I told you before I only started to research after I gotten a quite complete picture of what I have to offer. I read books mostly from the 70th and 80th on how the brain works, psycology, medicine, mathematics and the universe. The most revealing reference is a book which is used in colleges to teach the history of chemistry. And I listend to any show on TV with any relevance to science. Basically what I have found out is that there is no reference to what I have figured out or, if somebody came close, was never followed. There might be a simple reason for it - I am just plain wrong. But there are a lot of references to what is not known yet or that it might take a very long time until we will know it - if ever. This is not what I need to forward. The only 'reference' to any occurence or use of my theory which I had was nature and this is the only reference I can refer to. Any other reference, like the Newton Cradle is already mentioned. I thought that the story of the change from ape to human might be a very good sample to make somebody realise how simple it could be to explain something over what scientist have 'debated' over centuries - if reality is taken into consideration. That thought is carried through the A/R theory. (If notes like this makes you think that I am just an arrogant fool to get attention then this is why I have added an explanation of myself last time, but it is not relevant to the A/R theory itself).
I never needed to be dishonest. And if I step on somebodies toes or hurt his feelings then it might be simple because they are not used to such honesty.
Possible controversies
Did you realise that if an energy signature can be found on smaller matter the way I propose that it would upset most of the teachings and theories which are accepted today? For a long time this thought kept me from telling anybody. Finaly I now try to find out if science is ready to take a second look on itself. Something which Wikiversity suggest it might be open to. If not, would it matter? No. Nature has plenty of time to go on any way it might. If humans are a part of it is up to humans. And since life (according to me) is not restricted to earth another form of humans (intelligence) can evolve anywhere in the universe where the conditions are right.
Which also brings me to the questions you have.
First debate: I could reply to your answer: why using the word 'debate', which has already another meaning, for 'questioning and answering'? The meaning, I learned, is that if two people have a different oppinion of something then they 'debate' to reach a common denominator. Which in real life usually does not lead to much, since no one wants to give up his position, until one starts to ask questions and the other replies with an answer. That would seem like real collaboration to me. E.g. if you tell me that you do not understand a word I use then I would be glad to collaborate with you and think it over. If it can be better described or otherwise phrased then I will be very cooperative to change the original. Usually questions and answers are added at the end or another page which I know can be done.
Second Glossary: Since the A/R theory follows a different way of thinking, I don't believe that it is necessarily new and I know that it does not discover any new knowledge, the terms used need to be somewhat adapted to the idea. But since they also refer to like phenomenon which are already described, formulated, disected in other knowledge and theories they are basically common knowledge. So it is only helpful to point out the differences which makes them functional in the A/R theory.
Charge: I sometimes use charge, sometimes potential energy (movement) or temperature which all are some form of exitement. I could have written the explanation which follows under any of the other topics. Charge seem to be the most common one.
Gravity: I came to the conclusion that what is termed 'gravity', a pulling force, is in reality a symptom created by pressure. Since it is very controversial maybe I should have left it out. But I think that it is necessary to include it to understand the whole concept of the A/R theory. But since I also know that gravity in itself is still controversial it might simply offer another explanation which in turn might help in the development of the A/R theory.
Inertia: Another example to adapt the describtion to the whole. Any other description would not say anything else but would only be confusing.
Maybe all my explanations could get you to agree with me that any further atempt to explain, shape or develop the A/R theory at this stage would only curb it in its possibility. Because it is still in its infancy, unexplained, unexplored it can attract the most possible audience around the world which cannot find satisfying answers. With other words why try to impose fantasies which have not lead to solutions on the vast fantasies which are still out there. If I wanted the A/R theory to go the same way other theories went I would have only needed to send it to a scientific magazine which would have braged about it and maybe have sparked discussions if it will lead to anything. Or somebody whould try to buy the full rights and all that nonsense. But in the end it would take many years to show any results, or maybe is restricted to a small area or ... ???? If you want to convert it into a Wikiversity learning project or school then please feel free to do so, for that it is here but please do it only after it has had a chance to 'roam' the world. Because basically I believe that if that will happen then I will be out of the picture. It either totaly fails or it will be out of my control anyway. But if sombody succeeds to prove that an energy signature exist then we could have the possibility (in 2 or 3 years) to cure any sickness because we have the same possibility which microbes or viruses have - analyse and use their environment.--Martin Lenoar 06:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Moulton edits you might like to review.[edit source]

[5]. There are two edits currently listed there which are Moulton edits, reverted without review of content, because he's blocked. Since you have worked on these pages, I wonder if you might review these and, if you consider them positive contributions, restore them, you can just click undo on the diff that will pop up, and that should do it, unless someone else has edited the page in those sections. On the other hand, if you consider them harmful or disruptive, please let me know so I can so indicate on my list of edits by blocked editors.

If you consider them positive content, but believe that they would nevertheless cause a problem, you can choose to tell me that instead. I have not reviewed what is at the links, and certainly it is possible that there is something there that could be a problem.

I'm keeping track of what kinds of contributions are being made by blocked editors. It's rather obvious, if you review what's listed where I've linked, that almost all the edits have been restored and are standing without apparent problem, so far, but these two edits have not yet been reviewed. Don't you think that's interesting? --Abd 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I invited you, above, to please review two edits made by Moulton, August 22, to pages you had worked on. I am not familiar with the content or purpose of those pages, and my revert of Moulton was purely due to his blocked status. You may restore these without any object from me. However, you should make sure that they are not content that would be, in itself, disruptive even if the edits had not been made by Moulton. You have complained that "good faith" edits were being removed. This is your chance to undo two of those removals (I've undone many others, when I could find a basis for it.) I am not going to second-guess you, but I cannot guarantee that no other editor will not see these restorations as harmful. If however, nobody is willing to stand up for Moulton's right to edit, he won't have a right to edit. Your choice. But please let me know, if possible, with an acceptance of the review or a decline to review. These are my reverts,[6][7] which you might be able to simply undo, it should be easy, if you want to accept the content.
I have recently been compiling a list of edits by Moulton and their disposition, you can see it at User:Abd/Moulton edit review. This could be highly useful in a future consideration of unblock. My conclusion is that the bulk of the edits are useful or at least harmless, leading to some hope that the small fraction of those that are problematic might disappear, or be voluntarily reduced to a tolerable or manageable level, if Moulton is treated with respect by the community, which I'm working on. Mainly the only serious problem I've seen in this period was an entirely unnecessary burst of revert warring by IP from him, it had predictable results.
If you are not willing to restore those two edits, I won't ask again, I'll archive them as not restored, because I can't afford the effort to determine if they are useful or not, and there are some obvious issues, such as linking to his off-wiki pages. I don't mind that, but, as you know, some do. I seriously doubt, though, that you would be blocked for restoring these if you want the content in. If you don't restore them, I'll assume that you don't want them and that they were therefore likely disruptive, adding unwanted content. But it's up to you. You may make any comments you like. Best wishes --Abd 23:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Help me learn in the Wikiversity School[edit source]

Help me Learn in the Wikiversity school, Leave a message on my talk page if you have a question tell me this message Bhainbore--Bhainbore 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded[edit source]

I responded to you on Jtneill's talk page. This is just an example of why you are acting 100% against your own interest. Without me, you will probably be harassed with blocks by him if you bother to stick around like you were before. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit source]

Note this. I think you can request such through Jtneill or SB Johnny, for your information. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He is right. Ottava, now that he seems to have determined he is retiring, has been going around trying to undo certain past actions he regrets or no longer considers necessary or appropriate, or is acting more boldly, perhaps, to undo certain collective injustices. I've supported his basic suggestion on the Colloquium. Please take a look at it. If you want your sysop bit back, if you are willing to again serve the community that way, you are welcome to ask for it, and a 'crat might grant it with no further fuss. Or might want to see a discussion, up to the 'crat. I do not believe that it's likely the bit will be returned if you don't indicate you want it or, at least, that you would accept it.
My opinion is that anyone who wants the bit is somewhat disqualified, ipso facto, but, I suppose, people can want to help out. Too many, though, who want it, want it so they can implement their personal vision. Good luck. --Abd 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I was happy to help with custodial work back in the days when that just meant doing boring work like cleaning up vandalism. In the current era, I'd probably end up fighting with folks who take it upon themselves to abuse their tools. Anyhow, I'm just too busy in the real world right now to even spend time in the wikisphere. --JWSchmidt 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
That's still what it means, JWS. I don't think we will see a lot of tool abuse in the future, however. If there is any fighting needed, it is about making cogent arguments with evidence, not using tools to wheel-war. Times are changing. That you ask for the bit back doesn't require you to actually use it any more than any other sometimes-inactive sysop. It just presents an option. I intend to close the discussion at the Colloquium later tonight, though, unless you change your mind. You still have, my opinion, the right to ask a 'crat for your bit back, any time, and the 'crat will decide if a discussion is needed. Good luck with your work. --Abd 00:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't require our sysops to be active or do any work. Right now, Custodian status is primarily for those who make no edits except to come back at opportune moments to try and cause harm to others and the project, make grandiose claims, then vanish again. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way[edit source]

Perhaps you need to reread this. Notice which people block you, and which people unblocked you. Which side chose which? If you think I was the problem and not the solution, then you were clearly backwards in your assessment. You are being manipulated by the people who spent 2 years trying to punish you through abusive blocks and to get some sort of petty revenge out of it all. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Additions for Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu[edit source]

JWS, Mikeu has a long history of using ops abusively against you and Moulton, and to create a poisonous atmosphere to discourage academic pursuits here. Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu was opened up over it, but I would like any input regarding abuse of status regarding you and Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ACR[edit source]

Hi! This is the revised form of Action/Reaction. Like the title, they way I tried to pass it on was also vague. Therefore I have renamed, ACR,and rewritten what I want to bring to the attention of other people. As you have told me I needed to make clear what I was talking about. Well, I tried again, but still need a frank oppinion if this is now more to the point and describes better the whole picture. I placed a few links in other categories but cannot spark an interrest. If your time permits could you please read it and tell me your scentific oppinion. You were the only one who looked at it scientifically.--Martin Lenoar 04:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Social Sciencesnew[edit source]

Can you please tell me the history behind this page? It seems redundant to the current Portal:Social Sciences. TeleComNasSprVen 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can subpage it as Portal:Social Sciences/temp instead, as it is currently misleading as an active portal page redundant to the other one. Subpages are sort of like "sandboxes" used to tweak appearances used for doing this. TeleComNasSprVen 21:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The content of Portal:Social Sciencesnew was copied to Portal:Social Science, 17 January 2007. JWS never replied to this query, it is unknown if he is still following his talk page. I have added a speedy deletion tag to the page, because it is highly likely that it was a draft he worked on that was then taken into the regular portal. JWS, if you read this, and if you somehow want this page, it can easily be restored and moved to your user space, or otherwise handled. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)