Wikiversity:Colloquium/What should we do about JWSchmidt?

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Later note: An additional thread was opened on this topic by User:SB_Johnny (bureaucrat) at Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Review_requested_on_recent_behavior_of_JWSchmidt, requesting a review of John's behaviour and likewise calling for action. --McCormack 06:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may have been aware that User:JWSchmidt isn't exactly being friendly to me around here. Most of you will not be aware how bad it is getting or that other users are also being bullied. Some of you may have been manipulated by the weird edit summaries into thinking that it's a two-sided thing rather than bullying. User:JWSchmidt has been constantly trying to force a confrontation similar to a Wikipedia-style "arbcom" case since about 19th August. The worst disruption has been his "learning project" on myself phrased in a rather aggressive style at Wikiversity:Student union (see especially the versions of http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Student_union&oldid=317331 and this difference: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3AStudent_union&diff=315213&oldid=315186). In particular, JWS has continually edited the main page to point to his "attack learning project" on me. However there are loads of other edits which have been strange to say the least. I think JWS's tactics are really to exploit Wikiversity's relatively weak and small community and see just how far he can push us before he either destroys the community in civil war or before he manages to drive out the best editors. I'd been hoping that this would blow over by itself. Disruptive users only have a limited amount of energy. But I think this may have got to the point where the community has to make a decision about JWS. I'll leave it to other users to suggest disciplinary measures, if any. It would be best if we can turn JWS back into a constructive user. --McCormack 15:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCormack: I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Is it that you are not happy when you cannot delete other people's contributions to Wikiversity? If I prevent you from deleting Wikiversity content you feel that I am not "exactly being friendly" to you? Preventing Wikiversity content from being deleted is "bullying"? Discussing your efforts to delete Wikiversity content is an "attack"? "I think JWS's tactics are really to exploit Wikiversity's relatively weak and small community and see just how far he can push us before he either destroys the community in civil war or before he manages to drive out the best editors." <-- Why should preventing you from deleting Wikiversity content cause a "civil war"? Are you claiming that "the best editors" will leave Wikiversity if they are not allowed to delete Wikiversity content? What "disciplinary measures" do you have in mind? Blocks for all Wikiversity participants who do not support your attempts to delete Wikiversity content? By your definition, anyone who prevents you from deleting Wikiversity content is no longer a "constructive user"? Please explain. --JWSchmidt 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you both just sound hostile. Can we not learn something from Moulton and Centaur of Attention? The Jade Knight 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that opera lovers here would learn to appreciate the lessons of Bela's classic Soap Opera, Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination. —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and JWSchmidt, in my book, stating that "McCormack does not invite students to participate, but Wikiversity does"[1] when all he did was remove a link on the main page to a (currently) problematic learning project (particularly one where the community has recognized problems) is definitely "not exactly being friendly", maybe even what I'd call a personal attack. The Jade Knight 15:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Narcissistic Wounding. —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as to say that JWSchmidt is intentionally out to create a community civil war or drive out the best editors. That said, his actions over at Wikiversity:Student union have been very hostile. I'm hoping that he will self-censure, cool down, and that disciplinary measures won't be necessary? It is okay for us to have conflicting viewpoints here at the WM Utopia that is Wikiversity. It is not okay to ridicule other users for having differing opinions. The Jade Knight 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jade Knight: please explain how my actions are "very hostile". I saved the page from being deleted and now I am developing the content of the page. In my view, it is the effort of others to delete this page's content that is hostile to the very nature of the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 17:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I defined hostile at the student union page. But to repeat… To whit: you have not been hospitable and you attempted to intimidate and antagonize McCormack. More generally, you have:
  • Assumed bad faith on our parts
  • Refused to listen to consensus
  • Acted hostily towards other participants
  • Pretended like you're not doing anything antagonistic
  • Insisted that only your view encourages students to participate on Wikiversity, and that ours discourage them.
  • Misconstrued our edits.
That's a beginning of it, at least. The Jade Knight 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jade, I am interested in learning how you form theories of mind of your adversaries. In the above, you have presented interesting theories of the beliefs ("assumptions"), desires, intentions, and pretensions of knowledge of JWS. I personally find it difficult to construct an accurate theory of mind of my own adversaries, so I am curious to learn how one does this. Would you be kind enough to unpack for me your evidence and reasoning to support your remarkable theory of mind regarding the cognitive-emotive state of JWS? —Moulton 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jade Knight: "Assumed bad faith" <-- please give details. "Refused to listen to consensus" <-- near the very start of a discussion, without any serious attempt to explore the reasons for what was happening, an attempt was made to claim that Wikiversity consensus favors deleting a learning exercise I am developing. As far as I know, there has been no consensus established on this matter. I am improving a page that other editors want to ignore, delete, or otherwise marginalize. There is currently a continuing discussion in which calls are being made to delete the learning exercise. In that discussion, I have asked other editors to make suggestions and improve the page. Some of the other editors seem to only want to perform censorship and prevent me from further developing the learning exercise. Jade Knight, you keep saying I "Acted hostily" (both here and repeatedly on the talk page discussion) but you provide no evidence of this. I am building a learning exercise that is allowing students to explore an important aspect of Wikiversity. Please explain where you imagine that "hostility" enters into my actions. "Pretended like you're not doing anything antagonistic" <-- maybe you just imagine that I am pretending. Please explain what I have done that is "antagonistic". "Insisted that only your view encourages students to participate on Wikiversity" <-- I never said that. I've invited you to contribute constructively to the page I am improving. "Misconstrued our edits" <-- which edits are you talking about? The edits that try to prevent students from going to the main student portal page? The edits that try to get the main student portal page deleted? The edits that try to turn the main student portal page into a redirect? The edits that try to delete (without justification) my edits to the main student portal? --JWSchmidt 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm content with the current state of affairs, with your little "parody" filed away as a case study, and the Student Union open to pertinent improvement. If you really want I'll give you a point-by-point response to your claims, etc. However, if the state of affairs at this moment carries, I don't see the need to carry on the argument; I'd rather get around to improving Wikipedia than be antagonized by you. So, you tell me. Do you really need me to do more specific fault-finding? Personally, I have little hope that there'll be any repentance on your part, no matter what I post here. The Jade Knight 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--- (ec) I've read the history of this page. While I feel the intimidation is questionable, I don't agree that there was intent to antagonize. I'm not fond of anything made into parodies, as it's not my cup of tea (either), but the intimidation seems only valid as a parody. McCormack's concern appears valid intimidation only as that parody, but history of the article and purpose of Wikiveristy shows such "giving in" to parody could have been avoided. Instead of finding fault on someone (to avoid a win-lose situation), I suggest a minor or major restructure. The consensus was to keep the page, so the obvious step is to resource it more. It may not look like a "student union" in the end as JWSchmidt would like it. Dzonatas 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me like an absolutely outrageous accusation by McCormack again revealing his trademark paranoid rhetorical flourishes to try to paint people who do things a little differently around here as conspirators in "civil wars" or "exploiting weaknesses". Really now, lets please, please, please try to keep the place a bit more scholarly and open minded and try not to resort to the slanging matches we see in taking place in our more pedestrian neighbor. This discussion should have remained on the page where it first arose. Countrymike 07:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Countrymike. Perhaps you are not familiar with the edits in question? I've posted one example (of many) to your talk page and below). I hope that as a custodian, you will take the time to read and check the case for accuracy. Thanks. --McCormack 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage the parties to engage in a scholarly colloquium to study the conflicting theses that McCormack, Jade Knight, and Countrymike each posit, above, and subject them to scientific peer review to determine the degree to which each thesis is supported by evidence, analysis, and reasoning. For example, Jade Knight's thesis that McCormack felt "intimidated" can be tested two ways. First of all, McCormack can testify whether his affective emotional state was, in fact, one of fright. Secondly, we can observe McCormack's actual reaction in the pages of Wikiversity and compare it to the scale posited by the Phreaking Spectrum. Are the parties amenable to such a scholarly exercise in conflict analysis? —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example of User:JWSchmidt's recent editing[edit source]

This is just one example of many. After looking at some of the above comments, especially by User:Countrymike, and in the light of User:SB_Johnny's request for a review of User:JWSchmidt's editing, we need to have some solid facts behind any accusations made. --McCormack 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case: the deletion request template[edit source]

Go to the history of the deletion request template here: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Deletion_request&action=history. Countrymike made a sensible version in March (good sensible solid edit). On 11th August, User:ViperSnake151 made some design changes, not content changes. ViperSnake151 was doing a number of template design improvements at the time. ViperSnake151's edit drew John's attention and John made this edit [2] which was problematic for two (smallish) reasons: firstly, the box title didn't fit the content any more, and second, the box content started to move in an anti-deletionist direction rather than being just neutral. Nobody did anything for a while. 20 days later, User:Adambro spotted the first of these problems (title misfit) and undid the change - however he left the anti-deletionist content alone. Adambro's edit was small, harmless and undoubtedly a small improvement - see [3]. JWS promptly reverted Adambro, insisting that a "reason must be given". Actually what was going on here was that JWS wanted a reason to be entered on the template using a parameter, but the template had no parameter, and (as I slowly realised) JWS didn't know how to edit templates to use parameters. Basically, the argument was over the introduction of a parameter which neither of JWS (nor perhaps Adambro) could programme in. The argument between Adambro and JWS goes back to at least 20th August, when Adambro was active on the deletion requests pages and JWS got sarcastic with him using the comment "Adambro: you do not recognize any difference between editing a wiki and using a word processor?" [4] (note also JWS's comment to this edit). Anyway, at this point (31st August again), I didn't like how JWS was treating Adambro and I stepped in and restored Adambro's edit as well as making a few further changes to the template - reformating, and making JWS's content edits of 11th August more neutral in tone. At the same time, I created the talk page for the template and opened a discussion of the edits. Instead of using the talk page, JWS promptly started using the template itself as a talk page with this large edit [5], transcluding his opinions into every page currently up for deletion. This was probably the first truly "disruptive" edit on this page, because by repurposing the template as a discussion forum, JWS disrupted the functionality of Wikiversity and forced his agenda. It's something called "disrupting a project to make a point". The template couldn't actually be left in that state, regardless of points of view. The first person to step in and correct the problem was User:Adambro, who reverted JWS's edits. I think this was right. JWS immediately reverted Adambro and this time left an even bigger essay right in the middle of the template: [6]. The template was now at 340 words or so and about 10 times larger than a template should be. John's sarcastic comment for his edit was that the template "was not long enough". Adambro then reverted John. John then reverted Adambro again, leaving an even longer essay in the middle of the template (370 words). At this point, Adambro was on 2 reverts and John was on 3 reverts. I think if we'd been applying Wikipedia rules, JWS could have been legitimately blocked from editing Wikiversity for a short cool-off period. Watching this, I decided not to block JWS and I also decided not to revert JWS. I felt this would worsen the situation, although JWS was clearly wrong and way out of line. Instead I left a note on the talk page about the edit war and backed off. At this point, another custodian (User:Darklama) took up the problem of putting the template back into order after the edits by JWS. See Darklama's edits here [7] where he removes JWS's essay and tries to improve the template. User:Darklama is a good programmer and introduced the "reason parameter" as well. Darklama's edits were good. Adambro changed Darklama's edits and removed the reason parameter - I don't agree with that particular edit by Adambro, as the presence or absence of the parameter should have been discussed on the talk page first. I can see arguments both ways between Darklama and Adambro. I think both of their edits were good faith. Darklama then reverted Adambro. I tend to agree with Darklama. Darklama continued to prgrammatically improve the template (good edits). User:JWSchmidt then returns and starts inserting essays into the middle of the template again - this is once again disruptive editing, and the edit summaries are not exactly polite towards Darklama. Darklama reverts JWS, referring to JWS's "anger and frustration". The final word in this saga was when a sockpuppet account suddenly appeared and added a penis-icon to the template - pornographic vandalism. Without a checkuser action, we do not know who was behind this edit. The current version of the template is as left by Darklama and Hillgentleman. --McCormack 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one small point: there was a checkuser run on the vandal, and it's highly unlikely that this had anything to do with anything else (that particular vandal tends to follow contribs of active sysops and vandalize whatever they were editing previously). --SB_Johnny talk 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the CU info. Yes - it does also happen that the porno-vandals just attack anything that's been recently edited a lot. So unassociated. --McCormack 12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the above account, I lost track of the number of times the question, "Why?" popped into my head without there being a clear explanation in the narrative. It would be helpful to me to know why different editors introduce (or redact) the disputed content or formatting details. —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It would be helpful ..... to know why different editors introduce (or redact) the disputed content" <-- Okay, here is the story. Deletion templates have been misused at Wikiversity. The basic problem is that some editors want to delete content from Wikiversity according to the rules/culture of Wikipedia. In contrast to what is done at Wikipedia, Wikiversity welcomes all participants who make good faith contributions. Rather than delete their contributions, we collaborate to improve Wikiversity pages. My edit of 11 August 2008 was intended to help prevent misuse of the template. "the box content started to move in an anti-deletionist direction rather than being just neutral" <-- People were misusing the template, so something needed to be done. "Adambro's edit was small, harmless and undoubtedly a small improvement" <-- I do not agree. It is important that people think about why they are trying to delete a page. What is wrong with forcing people to provide a valid reason for deletion on the page they are trying to delete? At that point, I was tired of seeing false reasons being provided for deleting Wikiversity content. Something had to be done to prevent people from continuing to bring the toxic deletionist culture of Wikipedia into Wikiversity. This had become a topic for concern and discussion in the #wikiversity-en chat channel since about August 20. "Instead of using the talk page" <-- when I noticed the talk page discussion, I did participate (my talk page comment). McCormack previously called me a troll and informed me that he would not longer talk to me. Its not very sensible for him to now complain that I did not try to use a talk page and talk to him. In any case, I was editing the template so as to make improvements to it. McCormack says that my edits were "disrupting a project to make a point". In my view, the version of the template that I was developing is an improvement over what we had then and what we have now. I can understand that people who enjoy deleting Wikiversity content will call me disruptive when I work to prevent the deletion of Wikiversity content. In my view, those who try to delete Wikiversity content are the disruptive ones. There is a stark contrast here: should Wikiversity delete good faith contributions or take the time to improve them? "JWS could have been legitimately blocked from editing Wikiversity" <-- Wikiversity is not Wikipedia. I was making a good faith improvement to a Wikiversity page. At Wikiversity we block vandals, not people who are making good faith contributions. "inserting essays into the middle of the template again - this is once again disruptive editing" <-- In my view, the template was too short. It needed more instructions to help Wikiversity participants not abuse the page deletion process. As far as I can tell, my good faith improvements to the template can only be viewed as "disruptive" by someone who wants to misuse page deletion. "JWS's anger and frustration" <-- I agree that it is frustrating to watch Wikiversity participants try to delete the good faith contributions of their peers. I deal with my frustration by editing so as to improve Wikiversity. "The final word in this saga" <-- I do not think we have yet seen "the final word". We still have one or two participants who think they have the right to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity editors. I suppose there will always be more people coming here from Wikipedia where they have learned to be deletionists. They will try to apply Wikipedia's rules and standards and methods for deletion to Wikiversity. I stand ready to protect Wikiversity and fight to make sure that Wikiversity retains its culture of welcoming good faith contributions. "It would be helpful ..... to know why different editors introduce (or redact) the disputed content" <-- In summary, I was trying to prevent the misuse of page deletion at Wikiversity. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to say what other editors were trying to accomplish. --JWSchmidt 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the next step would be to devise an objective way to assess and distinguish "good faith" from "bad faith" in the context of such edits. It occurs to me that part of the problem is that participants don't agree on what constitutes an improvement. That could be due to different perceptions of the over-arching values of Wikiversity, or it could be due to the inability to assess an edit toward or along the Pareto-Optimal Frontier of the Wikiversity Value System. Perhaps it would be best to start with a Values Clarification Exercise to see if we all agree on the Wikiversity Value System. —Moulton 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Values Clarification Exercise" <-- Yes, that would be useful. --JWSchmidt 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This case should be moved to its own page. I suggest: Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikiversity/Case_Studies/Deletionism or Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikiversity/Case_Studies/Disruption. This is entire thread is surely about behaviour beyond JWSchmidt. It would be more constructive to have its own page for review and to study ethics. Dzonatas 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to study the evolution of Wikiversity from early days to present[edit source]

Posted on the discussion page for the Wikiversity Student Union:

Moulton 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit source]

It's not just me - two other users are reverting his inapropriate additions. Try to keep up. Salmon of Doubt 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm building a learning resource for students. What do you mean by "inapropriate additions"? --JWSchmidt 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were turning the Student Union into a screed against deletionism. Try to keep up. Salmon of Doubt 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts have been made to delete the main student portal of Wikiversity, turn the main student portal of Wikiversity into a redirect, and delete from the main student portal of Wikiversity a learning exercise that was designed for students. Salmon now refuses to discus the further development of the page, but he keeps reverting the page, without comment. "a screed against deletionism" <-- I don't know what that means. I crafted a learning exercise that allows students to learn about deletionism in the context of the attempted deletion of the Student Union page. This is relevant to all students who want to participate at Wikiversity. If other editors have ideas for other useful content on the page they should help develop the page. --JWSchmidt 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the summary unilateral deletion of well-sourced scholarly content. I object to the false claim that there exists a 'consensus' to revert the addition of well-sourced scholarly content. Given that at least two editors object to the deletion of well-sourced scholarly content, there is no 'consensus' to delete it. Please restore it. —Moulton 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JWSchmidt, we all support reformation of the Student Union into something more helpful. We oppose not the keeping of the Student Union (McCormack may have at one point, but if so he's changed his mind since), but your using it as a platform to launch what appear to be (to the first three of us to show up) personal attacks (harassment by parody is still harassment). The Jade Knight 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"personal attacks (harassment by parody is still harassment" <-- I do not understand your reasoning, I've harassed nobody. If you have suggestions for how to improve the page, lets discuss your suggestions on the talk page. --JWSchmidt 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary here seems to me to be intended to insult McCormack; you've set up a "correct" standard behavior ("Wikiversity does"), and then you draw a contrast between correct (Wikiversity) and McCormack, making sure to discuss the person (ad hominem) instead of the content of the edit. I know you're having a fun time pretending like you never said anything which could be construed as insulting, but I'm growing very tired of this. A solution (I hope) has been found; you have your playground to insult the deletionists. Let's be done. The Jade Knight 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Google Knol article, Narcissistic Wounding. —Moulton 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "I think that's a great place to put it, Dzonatas. I think I may just make a parody of it, file it away... Any thoughts?" In my profession, I inoculate bugs. Viruses, like cancer and HIV, are not cured when every infected host is killed off. I'm not laughing at any parody here. Dzonatas 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jade Knight: "intended to insult McCormack" <-- My edit summary explained my edit. In my view, removing the link to the student portal is removing a significant part of the Wikiversity invitation to students. Were it anyone else, I could have discussed the matter on their talk page, but McCormack has called me a troll and refuses to talk to me. My only remaining point of contact is edit summaries. I agree that sending messages to him by way of edit summaries is not an ideal solution, but the root problem is that McCormack refuses to talk to me and that leaves me with no means of communication except edit summaries. I'll stop sending personal messages to McCormack by way of edit summaries if he agrees to talk to me in other communications channels. --JWSchmidt 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, you "message" was insulting. That said, McCormack should definitely still be using other communication channels (and he at least seemed to be using the talk page for the Student Union article), though he failed to do so for the front page bit (though I personally felt like his edit was perfectly-well explained (in a non-insulting manner) in the edit summary). At any rate, let's move on from this and be more constructive, eh? The Jade Knight 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We get this nonsense at Wikipedia all the time. The scenario goes like this. Person one does X. Person two says "Person one did X". Person one says "That a violation of our civility policy; you are attacking me." I hope everyone can see that this is unacceptable. Person two one should either justify doing X or else say "Whoops, my bad, sorry." Sometimes that will look like: "Well, I did X and that was a mistake; but you could have said that nicer." Instead people get all defensive and attack the person who pointed out they did something inappropriate; claiming the language that was used was not nice enough. Please, this is not kindergarten. When you make a mistake, own up to it and move on. WAS 4.250 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. The Jade Knight 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WAS is exactly right. In fact this idiocy is so common (not just on Wikipedia) that I wrote a parody of it.
Terrorism vs Anti-Terrorism


Terrorist: You have sown fear in me. Now I will repay you by sowing fear in you.

Anti-Terrorist: I will hunt you down and annihilate you and your kind.

Terrorist: I am not afraid to die. My violence will strike anywhere, anytime, when you least expect it.

Anti-Terrorist: I am not afraid of your terrorist attacks. I will redouble my efforts to bring you down.

Terrorist: There are more where I came from. We will continue to fight your violence with our violence until the end of time.

Anti-Terrorist: Our violence is holy. We are using authorized and sanctioned violence under the color of law to fight your unlawful, evil violence.

Terrorist: I believe in my violence even more than you believe in yours. It is my true religion. I have no compassion for your lawful violence.

Anti-Terrorist: I have no compassion for your unlawful violence.

Terrorist: Then we are in agreement. Our mutual lack of empathy and our mutual fear ensures that our drama will continue forever and ever.

Anti-Terrorist: Suits me fine.

Terrorist: Me too. It gives meaning to my life.

Anti-Terrorist: Mine, too.

Terrorist: Then we're in agreement. We will escalate the mutual and reciprocal violence forever and ever.

Anti-Terrorist: Roger that.

Moulton 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250: "Person two should either justify doing X or else...." <-- If "Person one does X" why should person two justify it? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that. I corrected it. WAS 4.250 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the first post here, JWSchmidt should be unbanned and at least have his custodianship and probably also checkuser reinstated. Emesee 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium/What_should_we_do_about_JWSchmidt%3F&oldid=2204356"