User talk:JWSchmidt

From Wikiversity

research cycle[edit]


  1. Can you elaborate on what a research cycle involve?
  2. I would think that in one such cycle, there should be many different modes of communications (conversations, letters(informal), seminars(semi-formal) research papers(formal reports), (sometimes: monographs, textbook, lecture course,...) ); they should be subjected to different standards.
    • So far the discussions on beta focus on the formal report phase; it seems to me that everything else has been assumed to be discussion and completely free. But there are problems: for example, a lecture course does not fit in either of the two categories.
    • I have some thoughts here. Please tell me if I am mistaken.--Hillgentleman 04:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Do you plan to invite established schlars to participate in the review process? --Hillgentleman 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In my mind, Research is the one interest that separates Wikiversity from the other projects. I know of no large website whose purpose it is to "publish" research. Most of the other academic content, such as encyclopaedic and textbook content can be found elsewhere within Wikimedia; and other possibilities such as tests can be found elsewhere online. This concept of unfinished research being posted out in the open for anybody to contribute is quite unique, and certainly useful. Wikipedia is now regarded as a definitive authority on most factual things, and I certainly refer to it daily. Think now to the day where Wikiversity is classed as the 'publisher' of revolutionary research and the foundation of great discoveries. I believe Wikiversity is an ideal platform for original research, especially that conducted by those who are not at academic institutions, and those who have no other method of letting the rest of the world know what they have found out.

Original research is an absolute must for Wikiversity, and I disagree with anybody who says that simply academic reference and structured lessons is enough for Wikiversity to succeed. The question should not be "shall we allow research", but "what can we do with that research". The research cycle you have mentioned is a good way to look at this. One person comes up with the initial idea for the research, perhaps a few people develop that idea (on Wikiversity or otherwise), a team of people conduct the research (gather the data) and post the results on Wikiversity (where they should be protected from any future edits), and everyone on Wikiversity is able to (or is invited to) analyse those results and draw conclusions.

Surely Wikiversity is the ideal platform for this form of original research, and we should do more than encourage it. I see no disadvantages to hosting research (whether approved by a Wikiversity committee or whatever). If there are, could you point them out? Xenon (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to know that the discussion is not whether we should host collaborative research, but how we manage those activites. The obvious system would be to subject all completed research to an expert/admin-review process before it is protected and labelled approved. The issues with that are that it does not correct issues until the end process (which could take a while to repeat) and it still subjective on the basis of the expert/admin that reviews it.
Perhaps a better procedure would be that similar to the vandalism/RfD system - simply allow members of the community to tag sections of the report as unfair (with a template+category), allow encourage discussion of it, and allow corrections (and reversions) by custodians as normal. With research there is nothing to be gained by being neutral, since hypotheses and conclusions are the most important parts of the report - however there is a lot to gain by being objective. The actual collected data should be kept in a subpage and protected by a custodian as soon as it is there - that way neither the researcher or any malicious or well-intentioned editor has any chance to manipulate the data to push their agenda. That is one very specific guideline that can be enforced with minimum interference with the rest of the research. After the results have been gathered and posted, the rest of the report is an analysis of the results and evaluation of the procude.
If these measures are finalised and implemented, it protects the raw data, allows everybody to contribute, allows everybody to police and moderate the report, allows/encourages active discussion and participation and still allows enough control to ensure the objectivity of the report.- Xenon (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and good point (x5). That page protection system is certainly a step in the right direction, although it does have a couple of issues where the raw data is involved - it can still give the creator (protector) the opportunity to change the results where neccessary (which is good) or for less fair POV-pushing reasons (which is less good). However, I overlooked the history tab, which is a straightforwad clear indication of what's been changed by who. There should be a notice at the top of the raw data page requesting users not to edit the data (except perhaps reformatting). Every now and again any user (eg the researcher or a custodian) could simply check the history and make sure it hasn't been changed. I do appreciate that most results manipulation would happen in the gathering stage, eg to forge a correlation where there is none, but the tag has its own benefits. Simply tagging and checking the history is a viable alternative to protection.

One other thing I suggest is having a Research: namespace, and with [*] permissions set to readonly. This rules out guests from creating/editing research, but the argument could be that if they do not have the time to devote to signing up, then they wouldn't have the time to devote to reading the entire report and making useful informed contributions to it. Again, that's a bit harsh but it's a possibility.

So for the peer review system, you are suggesting having referees as approved editors (with academic experience) who would (amongst other duties) formally review research reports and deal with anomalies and agenda-pushing? What stage of the process would this occur in, since it is 'cumbersome' to go through all the edits and figure out where somebody is being unfair? If there is no defined end to the process (or if it takes years) then surely that has to be conducted at regular intervals, or is when the referee happens by enough? Then again, surely anybody is entitled to their own point of view so long as they do not edit others POVs or vandalise (inc get aggressive)? Is there a need to restrict people from making their statement, in a way that custodians could not? The advantage of a referee would not be to judge who was right/wrong, but to judge who is being unfair and disrupting the report. That is quite a responsibility.

Results replication is important, we do need to be able to confirm or disprove research. As well as the procedural part of the report, the evaluation is important - it identifies mistakes and suggests improvements. The great thing about having a large not-necessarily-academic community is that other people can (and will) attempt to replicate experiments. The problem with that is the inclusion of sub-standard hap-hazard research, as well as completely biased studies done by inexperienced editors. I appreciate that the point of Wikiversity, as of Wikipedia, is to allow anybody with tiny scraps of knowledge to come together and collate that knowledge, but perhaps some form of peer-review process should be introduced at the other end of the research cycle? Should researchers have to submit hypotheses and an outlined procedure for approval before they proceed with the research, or at least before they can submit it? Either that or referees should have the ability responsibility to weed out 'bad' projects and discuss them with their creator.

One final point I would like to introduce is the original researcher themselves - would the not have some say in closing the project (when they deem it complete)? Does the researcher (the data gatherer) have to remain to run the project? Could they not pass on responsibility for maintaining the report to a peer, friend or other editor? I believe someone who is passionate about that research should be on hand to maintain it, but need that be the original researcher? If the researcher leaves WV or if subsequent research has been conducted then the research should be marked as an archive. Of course discussion plays a big part in every step of this process, people asking for extra data, referees discussing POV-pushing, researchers deciding when/whether to archive or who to pass on responsibility to, even the analysis is a discussion of the results and the evaluation is a discussion of the procedure.

The referees would be a great asset, but what would be the selection criteria (beyond voting)?- Xenon (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, you say that (some people think that) the main content of the Wiki (for which it was created) should be in the main namespace, with others used for organising that content, metadata and other associative but non-focal things. I'd be inclined to agree with that, although to me lessons and research are two ends of the scale. At one end, researchers are taking what they know, gathering data and creating knowledge; at the other, the people with that knowledge are sharing it with others. Would this system benefit from their separation (as if they were in a separate wiki) or from them existing side by side? I don't think having a namespace for research would baffle people, its logical to me to use the prefixes (once they're introduced to the reader) and certainly isn't unneccessarily complicated. The benefits of having a namespace is the permissions-based editing. You suggest using Research: for the projects and collaboration, but I suppose that's nothing that couldn't be done from the main namespace. Unless we want permissions to be for the entire main namespace, I suggest we allow the separation. I don't agree with blurring the boundaries. On another note, should we have individual URM permissions for the researcher to be allowed to create pages in the Research: namespace?
However, once research has been completed and peer-approved then it becomes knowledge. It is then useful for people to learn from, rather than put their knowledge in. Then it is something that should be in the main namespaces. Once research is "complete", it has no need for a collaborative process, and the discussion available in the main namespace is enough. Alongside the occasional checking of the report, the main function of the "Referees" would be to approve completed reports and move them to the main namespace, adding an "approved research" template (with category_) and perhaps archiving discussion.
As for "Referee", it is an appropriate title, although perhaps being a member of a panel of referees (research committee?) is a more accurate designation? They should undergo the same processes as requests for custodian action - you can request occasional checks of your research so far, and then submit the research for approval. The final approval should perhaps be done by a panel of three referees, requiring a unanimous rubber-stamp before its moved and tagged. That process would also work for submitting approval before commencing research. As for selection of referees, I'd trust the custodian selection system. Don't worry, I'll stop using up so much of your talk page soon :-) - Xenon (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion page for Wikiversity:Research guidelines[edit]

Hello. Is the page Wikiversity:scope of research the discussion page for Wikiversity:research guidelines? If it is so, we should be the fact clear.--Hillgentleman 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There have been a total of 0 page views, and 3,626 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 5.90 average edits per page, and 0.00 views per edit"

I'm sure Beta is a little more popular than that... - Xenon (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I'm game for it. Let's get this show on the proverbial road. I'm literally finishing off a research project of my own, so all the juicy details are fresh.
As for the Special:Statistics problem, it isn't an isolated incident. Every Wikimedia Wiki I come across has had the reference to page views removed from the stats page - could be a problem with a common modification or (more likely) this pre-release version of Mediawiki (1.10alpha). - Xenon (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've noted some practical thoughts at User:Xenon/Research. Your input would be much appreciated. - Xenon (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consta User[edit]

Hello my name is Consta, I'm a Greek user in beta wikiversity. I would like to tell to you that I have made a lot of work in Category: EL (as you will see in my contribution) i have tried very much to upgrade it and with other developed languages there. Therefore, I would like to ask you if you can make me administrator protecting it from undesirable treatments.--Consta 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see this page Υποψηφιότητα Χρήστη Consta .--Consta 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The voting in my page its over .Also SPQRobin did'nt participate in Greek project, simply only voted. --Consta
  • Bot operator: User:White Cat (Commons:User:White Cat) - En-N, Tr-4, Ja-1
  • List of botflags on other projects: Bot has a flag on wikimedia (meta,commons) wikipedia (ar, az, de, en, es, et, fr, is, ja, ku, nn, no, ru, sr, tr, uz, simple...) (See: m:User:White Cat#Bots)
  • Purpose: Interwiki linking, double redirect fixing, commons delinking (for cases where commonsdelinker fails)

-- Cat chi? 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please send all bot requests through User:Sebmol. Thanks. --JWSchmidt 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User has made no edits since 1 July 2007 so I don't think he'd be able to respond. -- Cat chi? 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sebmol is easy to reach at German Wikipedia, ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rjclauddio custodianship[edit]

Im rjclaudio from beta.Wikiversity, and a pt-user. As Hillgentleman (a custodian there) sugested me, I start a discussion to name a custodian for in betawikiversity:Talk:Wikiversidade:Projeto#Administrador and the users elected me.

So Im asking you, as a Bureaucrats there, if you can give me the status.

Thanks, Rjclauddio 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The project have nowadays only 3 users active, but I send a message to 2 more users that have made a edit in the past 30 days, so its 4 users + me.
I proposed me and other two users, one that is a custodian in wikibooks, and other one that was active in the past but not that much now.
I asked if its necessary to contact every user, even the ones that dont edit for many time, and the others think its not necessary.
The four users voted in me, including the two I suggested.
The discussion about what I have done is in another section of the talk page, if you need I can translate too, but to cite the most important, I restart the discussion about the model to use in wikiversity, how to proceed to import pages from wikibooks, and Im starting to read what we still need to do to move to "pt.wikiversity".
One user is custodian in wikibooks, and he offered his help if I had any questions about the tools.
The discussion didnt have many arguments cause we are a short project so everyone know about the edits of the others and it wasnt necessary to comment (and in pt.wikipedia we are acostumed to simply vote, and only coment if the user want.
If you want any other information Ill translate to you.
Rjclauddio 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename request[edit]

Please, rename kisbes to balasyum. --Kisbes 18:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please rename me[edit]

Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to to it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Leo Johannes 18:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hillgentleman| 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As suggested, I have started a development page on the English research guidelines: Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En/Development. Hillgentleman| 01:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title blacklist[edit]

John, Here [1] is the description of the titleblacklist extension. Basically, the line (autoconfirmed, noedit) on m:title blacklist prohibits editing or the creation by an ip-user of a page which matches the wikipedia:regular expression, i.e. a pagename containing "Barsoom Took" or "Moulton" in the user or user talk namespace. The title blacklist does not prevent Moulton from editing; only the global block does. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 12:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would either of you gentlemen be willing to post a neutralizing entry in the local Title Whitelist, so that I can respond to comments on my talk page, rather than in out-of-the-way pages? Thanks. —Moulton 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Restoration[edit]

Mike Ingram marked each of those pages for speedy deletion ("beyond scope") over a month ago. No one commented. I object to the proposed deletion, but I am barred from posting my objection on account of the Title Blacklist. I propose the speedy deletion notice be reverted, as there was no second to Ingram's motion, no discussion, no community attention, review, or vote. His motion thus fails as the intervention of rogue operator, acting alone, outside the scope of Wikiversity policy, practice, and procedure.

Moulton 08:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any further consideration on this? Moulton 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping. —Moulton 23:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These pages have now been recovered. Thank you. Moulton 02:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usurpation and renames[edit]

Hi. I've two accounts here: Luckas13 and Luckas Blade. You can see on other projects like ptwikipedia, ptwiktionary and meta that Luckas13 was renamed to Luckas Blade. What I want that you do here:

  • Rename Luckas13 to another username (on Incubator was "Renameduser17", for example)
  • Rename Luckas Blade to Luckas13
  • Rename Luckas13 to Luckas Blade

These last two seems to be nonsense, but you have to do it, because doing this Luckas13 will be Luckas Blade and it will stay right. It's explained. --Luckas Blade 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask you to read again the request and see how it was made on Incubator. I hope this will help you to help me. --Luckas Blade 23:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you delete User:Luckas Blade, User talk:Luckas Blade, User:Luckas Blade (usurped) and User talk:Luckas Blade (usurped) ? Thanks. --Luckas Blade 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I don't need and don't want them anymore. --Luckas Blade 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@betaWikiversity,thanksSkjackey tse 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@betaWikiversity,thanksSkjackey tse 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All done. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didactic Character Subpages[edit]

I request undeletion of User:Moulton/Montana Mouse, User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork, User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin, User:Moulton/Albatross.

Moulton 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No longer needed. These pages have now been recovered from the versions on the English Wikiversity. Moulton 02:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More on Title blacklist[edit]

Note, John, that if you visit any of the existing subpages in the w:User:Moulton or w:User_talk:Moulton namespaces on the English Wikipedia, you will find this error message upon trying to edit them (e.g. to update broken links).

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

"Usually used to prevent vandalism" eh? But those pages are not vandalism. They've never even been called vandalism, not even by my most misguided critics. So they are "Title Blacklisted" and locked for an unspecified reason. My theory is that the unarticulated reason for silencing my voice is that those exercising the power to lock down those pages took exception to my admittedly annoying practice of speaking the truth to power.

Traditionally, when it was dangerous for an adult to openly speak the truth to power, the truth was spoken through nursery rhymes and through iconic characters in puppet shows.

Moulton 10:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preamble to the Declaration of Indignation[edit]

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)

Beetlebaum's Music and Learning[edit]

Moulton 23:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beetlebaum a fargenigen
Adambro men ken a bootkick krigen
A schnook. a Kort, a silent scream
Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing

(Cut Speech.)

Albatross 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Drama Theory, Dramaturgy, and the Bardic Arts[edit]

Moulton, can you explain the distinction between "drama theory" and "dramaturgy"? Where is the "Dramaturgy Workshop"? --JWSchmidt 20:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drama Theory encompasses theory and analysis of drama. It need not include a laboratory workshop section.
Dramaturgy includes lots of laboratory workshops in enacting drama, with less emphasis in the mathematical aspects of the underlying Drama Theory. You have to understand that Drama Theory includes a fair amount of mathematics. Dramaturgy usually doesn't go that deep into the analytical theory of dramatic structures.
The term "Dramaturgy" is widely used in Europe. In the US, we are more likely to use the term "Drama Theory" (which is an extension of "Game Theory").
There is also the term The Bardic Arts which is more about producing educational stories and dramas. Drama Theory, Dramaturgy, and the Bardic Arts are all very similar. It just depends on the focus or objective of the course. In Drama Theory, you would study Clancy's Theorem and the Vexagon Diagram. You might not spend much time on that in a Dramaturgy Workshop or in a course to develop the Bardic Arts. The Bardic Arts is more about StoryCraft and StoryTelling.
The Dramaturgy Workshop is synonymous with the English Wikiversity. About two years ago, the English Wikiversity was expanded and transformed from a traditional Online Learning Community into a Dramaturgy Workshop specializing in Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd.
Moulton 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learning Project and Dramaturgy Workshop on Liminal Social Drama[edit]

The Christian New Testament tells the story of a legendary upstart Jewish rabbi who sets out to introduce some radical new ideas into a troubled culture. He introduces some novel beliefs and practices into a mostly hostile culture by the artifice of a Liminal Social Drama. The methods of community education in the Passion Story are not unlike those of Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas K. Gandhi, or Martin Luther King in the 19th and 20th Centuries, who similarly sought to introduce some radical new ideas and cultural practices regarding the issues of Voting Rights, Citizens Rights and Self-Governance, and Civil Rights, respectively. How may we harness the power of Liminal Social Drama in a comparable way to introduce improved theory, policies, and practices into WikiCulture? —Moulton 13:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names[edit]

In addition to the passages you found earlier tonight, in which (User:KillerChihuahua) called User:Moulton by his real name, take at look at this remarkable edit.

Who made that edit? What did they redact?

And looking at the redacted section, what do you find if you search in page for "tight paragraph"?

This is what you find...

  • One adversarial WP editor from the IDCab, FeloniousMonk, prepared an extensive on-wiki document in which he compiled a dossier in which he and Filll undertook to file a scathing indictment of Moulton at multiple RfAr's and RfC's, whilst denying Moulton the unalienable right to respond at RfC and RfAr. The indictment relied on "testimony" from anonymous and pseudonymous posters on forums at WorldCrossing, including one forum in which the pseudonymous characters were engaged in a faux soap opera.

  • Another adversarial editor from IDCab, Dave Souza, posted an item on RfC/ID in which he similarly appended Moulton's real name, thereby linking Moulton's real name to Moulton's WP avatar name in a tight paragraph. The link to that remark is found on the author's talk page.

In all, four IDCab editors (FeloniousMonk, Dave Souza, Filll, and KillerChihuahua) posted tight paragraphs on-wiki, linking User:Moulton with his real life identitity and affiliations.

Montana Mouse 04:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Stealth Reincarnations[edit]

Charles Ainsworth notes that several of the editors involved with the Intelligent Design furore have apparently changed their account names in an attempt to escape the stigma of having been members of the notorious "ID Cab", one of the most bullying and fascist cabals ever to disgrace Wikipedia with its corrupt machinations.  Ainsworth acknowledges that these stealthy reincarnations appear to have been successful, because he hasn't seen the new account names revealed anywhere. —Moulton (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moulton rename etc[edit]

Please note this discussion. Adambro 11:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename user account[edit]


Could you or Hillgentleman rename my user account, as requested on Metawiki? Helder 15:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent blocks[edit]

Excuse me, but what the hell is this? I understand your frustration over the recent blocks that either or both of them have imposed on you on enwv and the IRC channels, but that is no reason to block them from editing here, and in fact looks like nothing more than mere childish retaliation. The only contributions they've made so far to this wiki has been the occasional removal of vandalism, and there's been no evidence that they have brought or will bring whatever "disruption" they've cause on another wiki to here. There was no emergency against what they've committed and no warnings offered them. What happens on another wiki stays on that wiki, and it should never be used as a reason for blocking a person on this wiki. Please remove your blocks against them immediately. TeleComNasSprVen 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, checking to make sure the sky doesn't fall, I'm agreeing with TCNSV. Those blocks are inappropriate; the users have not been, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive here. Please lift the blocks immediately. Thanks. --Abd 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you approve of misguided Wikimedians who think they can impose bans on Wikiversity community members against consensus? I don't. The Wikiversity mission has been vastly disrupted by Darklama and SB Johnny, as I explained to TeleComNasSprVen. "any stretch of the imagination" <-- I suggest you do your homework and keep stretching. SB Johnny continues to resist a Truth and Reconciliation process and you are free to aid him in trying to sweep the history of his disruption of Wikiversity under the rug. Alternatively you could help return Wikiversity to its mission and the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover. --JWSchmidt 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SB_Johnny has no edits here since June 2009 and Darklama has none here since November 2010. There is no justification for your claim of "Intimidating behaviour/harassment" on this wiki, please remove these immediately. --mikeu talk 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reasons for the blocks of Darklama and SB Johnny were given here and here with a link to this, also. Today Wikiversity was disrupted by a gang of misguided Wikimedians who were sent here to further harass Moulton. When I imposed the blocks on Darklama and SB Johnny it was my expectation that the Ruling Party of the English Language Wikiversity would extend their disruption of Wikiversity beyond imposing bad bans in the community chat channel, that they would start disrupting this wiki as they have disrupted the English Language Wikiversity since 2008. The blocks of Darklama and SB Johnny were imposed in an attempt to prevent the kind of circus that went on today: misguided Wikimedians (Jafeluv, Eptalon, Matanya, Barras, Laaknor, PeterSymonds) making absurd claims about vandalism and policy and imposing bad blocks. We learned today, again, that there is no shortage of misguided Wikimedians who can be gamed into protecting policy-violators and abusive sysops while harassing honest Wikiversity community members and wasting their time and deflecting them from advancing the mission of Wikiversity. Jimbo done learned them good. --JWSchmidt 03:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See Moulton's comments here counseling JWS against the use of the banhammer for any purpose to resolve a political disagreement. However there is now copious evidence (as of a few minutes ago) that SBJ launched a ludicrous Keystone Cops PhusterCluck on this otherwise peaceable wiki. —Firelion 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • JWS, you have been given an opportunity to reverse your actions. Instead, you are threatening to block another editor. I see little alternative, if you don't reverse yourself, to an emergency desysop here, or possibly a more orderly desysop process. Please reconsider. As you know, I have no personal power, other than the power to speak the truth, and I am here merely predicting what will occur. Moulton acted in ways that he, if sane, would surely know would result in his blocks. <-- not an accusation of insanity, the preferred understanding, for me, is that he knew, but chose to play out his chosen role in a drama of his creation. You have violated your own principles in these blocks. Blocks are, properly, to be used only as a last resort, and they are protective, never coercive. Retaliation for action elsewhere is a form of coercion, there was no risk to beta.wikiversity, and you knew that.
  • There was and is some risk to beta from Moulton's disrutpive edits, and by tolerating them, as they were, you were, yourself, risking damage to beta, including the loss of you as a sysop.

--JWSchmidt 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The hypocrisy of misguided Wikimedia Functionaries[edit]

  • Three days ago, SBJ posted false and defamatory characterizations of an identifiable living person, in gross violation of the WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People. Moulton then posted direct evidence to refute SBJ's patently false and defamatory characterization, in accordance with the WMF Whistleblower Policy. SBJ reacted by nefariously manipulating the stewards into oversighting the evidence that conclusively proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that SBJ knew he was dissembling when he posted false and defamatory remarks about Moulton in a venue where Moulton had been denied the unalienable right to rebut SBJ's false and defamatory characterizations. If next there is a maneuver to emasculate JWS, this issue will probably go viral and a lot of people will very likely get hurt. It would be better for all if SBJ stood down from his Keystone Cops shenanigans and found his moral compass. —Firelion 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Restore the evidence and you will see exactly, verbatim, and its entirety, what Moulton communicated to your spouse. Where, in that communication, do you see anything remotely resembling the false and defamatory characterization you posted on the English Wikiversity, in gross violation of the WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People. Moulton has adamantly demanded that the stewards oversight your false and defamatory characterization. If you want to tell WAS and Abd what Moulton communicated to your spouse, redact your false and defamatory characterization and replace it with the verbatim transcript of what he, in actual fact, communicated to her. —Firelion 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have access my wife's email, so what I posted was what you yelled into my ear over the phone (that you didn't want her to be with such a terrible person). I don't think she had even read it by that time, and I personally haven't seen whatever you wrote.
  • So again, who are you threatening to harm? SB Johnny 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Moulton doesn't have access to it, either, since she hasn't publicly posted her e-mail address anywhere. If you don't believe me, try to find it. The sum total of what Moulton communicated to your spouse is what he published here, as direct evidence to refute your absurd claims. You have seen 100% of what Moulton wrote, since he posted it here as evidence to demonstrate precisely what he communicated to her, full stop. —Firelion 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not what you told me, and you know it. Your edit comment speaks volumes, and it's good to see that you at least haven't resorted to lying about what you said. All I had to go by is what you told me.
  • One more time: who are you threatening to hurt? SB Johnny 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where do you see a threat?!? Moulton sought to heal people who were being hurt right and left. He failed utterly at that goal, and now we must reckon that people will continue to hurt each other faster than Moulton (or anyone else) can heal them. A scientific prediction is not a threat. The Dalai Lama says, "Help people if you can. If you can't help them, try not to hurt them." Moulton tried to help and he tried to heal and he failed miserably. And then four of his trusted colleagues in academia told him that the task was not only beyond his pay grade, it was beyond their pay grade, too. If four world-class experts concur that's it's hopeless, then I reckon it's hopeless. And so I, too, predict the damage will continue unabated into the foreseeable future. —Firelion 18:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton, diagnosing (much less treating) somebody over the interwebs is beyond everyone's paygrade. Publicly accusing somebody of having debilitating mental disorders is certainly a breach of civility and human dignity, if not actually libelous.
  • As for the other stuff, I clarified it. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think my misunderstanding was completely understandable given what you said to me. SB Johnny 18:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First of all darkcode asked Moulton if he was sociopathic or psychopathic, and Moulton told him no, he wasn't exhibiting any of the traits of Cluster B, but rather Cluster A Schizoid traits, and darkcode agreed that was a close match. And it's not debilitating. It just means he's not suited for work where warm interpersonal relationships are an important key to success on the job. I don't have an audio recording of what was said over the phone, but it doesn't matter, because the only communication from Moulton to your spouse was that request on Facebook for help in solving a problem. Asking someone for help in solving a difficult problem is neither inappropriate nor cause for libeling them. —Firelion 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You told me you also sent her messages through 2 other channels. Was that also a misrepresentation? That note wasn't so problematic, but (again) it's not what you told me it was about initially.
  • And posting your theory in a PM is not the same as posting it on a public wiki page, as you just did again. SB Johnny 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Moulton says the other two were just, "Please check your Facebook messages for an urgent message from me." And there is nothing wrong with Moulton publicly posting the same request for help that he originally sent to five others offline. Five people all told Moulton there was no known way to solve the problem and that it was all but hopeless. He finally concluded they were right. So it goes. —Firelion 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, that's not what Moulton told SB_Johnny at the time, but perhaps SB_Johnny shouldn't have taken Moulton at Moulton's word. In fact he probably shouldn't pay any more attention to him now, if he can't take Moulton at Moulton's word. Moulton made his bed, so now he gets to sleep in it, bugs and all. SB Johnny 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It takes a hell of lot to make Moulton angry. If he was angry enough to yell at you, you can reliably conclude you were way way way out of bounds. And if you are willing to go far enough to make Moulton angry, then I genuinely fear for others in your orbit whom you might treat with even a fraction of such a mean-spirited abuse of power as you visited upon Moulton. And I genuinely fear for those who are learning those ill-conceived practices at your knee. —Firelion 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup, that is much closer to what you said, and so that's what I thought your notes were about. Even if you hadn't said that (and again, again), trying to drag her into this was a boneheaded move in the first place. Selectively neglecting to give JWS the real background and happily watching him go to bat for you when he didn't know the full story was just as bad, if not worse. SB Johnny 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon what evidence, analysis, and reasoning do you arrive at the preposterous conclusion that JWS didn't know everything there was to know, at time it became available to be known?

  1. Did you receive three e-mail messages with an exchange between Barry Kort and Matthew Goodwin dated March 10th, requesting his opinion? My understanding is that both you and JWS were on the copy-to list and so you both would have learned the same thing at the same time.
  2. Did you receive a copy of an e-mail message on March 13, from Barry Kort to Hope Straughan? My understanding is that both you and JWS were on the copy-to list, and so you both would have learned the same thing at the same time.
  3. Did you receive a copy of an e-mail message on March 14, from Barry Kort to Leigh Blackall and James Neill apprising them of a looming crisis in Wikiversity? My understanding is that you, JWS, Mike Umbricht, and Ira Brad Matetsky were on the copy-to list, and so all four of you would have learned the same thing at the same time.
  4. Are you also aware that on March 15, Barry Kort sent messages to Leigh Blackall, James Neill, and JWS, advising them that he was abandoning Wikiversity? Are you aware that Kort's message of March 15 included the full text of his request for help to your spouse, along with her response declining to help solve the crisis, and his follow-up to her that, with all avenues leading nowhere, he was abandoning hope and abandoning the English Wikiversity?
  5. Are you aware that what Moulton posted here today was that selfsame March 15th e-mail which everyone (Leigh Blackall, James Neill, and JWS) had already seen except you? Are you aware that by posting it, Moulton sought to erase any mystery in anyone's mind as to why he was abandoning the English Wikiversity?

—Firelion 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deceptive omissions have to do with what you led me to believe the note was about, which more than explains my reaction to it (in fact I think I was pretty reserved). You owe apologies all around, but I suspect you won't offer one. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind now that you're more interested in creating strife than you are in working towards productive solutions. SB Johnny 23:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Omissions?!? What omissions? You were in on everything, at exactly the same time as everyone else, until Moulton received five strongly worded pieces of advice to immediately cut off communications with you and those in your orbit because your behavior had become unconscionably and intractably inappropriate, erratic, and abusive. —Firelion 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess you're trying to bury your admission of the omissions now? If you don't want to communicate with me or my kin that's fine, but please also stop posting our names and contact information, and please stop accusing me of misrepresenting what you said to me, because I didn't. SB Johnny 23:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have been authorized to inform you that you are a "god-damned mother-fucking lying son of a bitch." And also, "have a nice day." That is all. —Firelion 23:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's also not clear how Moulton deserves a block on this wiki. Isn't he entitled to Whistleblower Protection? —Firelion 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Firelion, you are Moulton, pretending to support Moulton. That's offensive, all by itself. As to Moulton tried to help and he tried to heal and he failed miserably, this may be how you perceives yourself, on some days, but you denies your own dark side, you have obviously been trying to hurt, to offend and harm. You, like nearly everyone, have mixed motives, and you cover over and hides, from yourself, your darker motives by telling yourself you are trying to educate, to help. What pedagogy suggests that you can help someone by calling her "Death Eater Bitch"? No, you need help. Physician, heal thyself. Follow up on those contacts, and be careful; they may give you advice assuming that what you tell them is the whole truth. Garbage in, garbage out, you know. If you want healing, you must become rigorously honest. Try to falsify your own hypotheses. --Abd 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is that your hypothesis? How rigorously honest are the Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse? —Barsoom Tork 09:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If/when you are unblocked, I implore you, please do not repeat this kind of behavior again. The blocks imposed on SB_Johnny and Darklama were based on off-wiki behavior, which I don't expect will have reflected their actions here, until just recently pending your blocks. As to whether or not they can be trusted not to "spread their disruption" here, their inactivity specifically on this wiki (before now) had rendered them much invalid as any shape or form of threat, and even when they were unblocked, they clearly showed no signs they were willing to block either you or Moulton. You will observe that the actions involved were actually imposed by the Stewards, alerted by your actions here. I've seen no evidence that they came here specifically on the requests of SBJ or KC. Your block log here was also clean until now. TeleComNasSprVen 07:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They originally came at my request. I was primarily concerned with the personal information (which was redacted in the later versions), but also with the "amateur diagnosis" of another WV contributor (which I'm not sure was ever redacted in the later edits). A couple of them asked me if JWS and Moulton were the same person, and I told them that they weren't, but that were pretty tight and would defend one another, and that Moulton would continue to hop IPs and re-add whatever he wanted more or less ad infinitum. I was no longer involved by the time whatever led to the block happened (well past my bed time), and since I don't have oversight I don't know what was being posted then, who was posting it, what had been redacted, etc.
Edit warring with and threatening to block stewards is generally not a good idea, nor is blocking two users and then encouraging another user to bait, poke, and/or insult them or their families. The stewards don't have all day to spend arguing with two people or reading every (long) posting to see if it's acceptable when the last 10 (or 20, etc.) have clearly not been acceptable. SB Johnny 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary Diagnosis[edit]

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a Cluster B Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, et al, as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 11:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Treatment[edit]

Craft a report for Collaborative Learning to be entitled, People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops, by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sample dialog:
I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the Devilsome Cluster/B/Phreaks.
She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"
And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).
She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're both BlockHeads."
Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The Collaborative Learning Blog is in need of an update, but it looks like is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --JWSchmidt 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cast of Characters[edit]

The Tin Badge Bungaleers are played by:

KillerGoatDog, Dominant Alpha Bitch
Bilious Kid, Banhammer Operator

The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse are played by:

Peter Summons, Sheriff of Snottingham
BearAss, Chief BlockHead
Monotony, Deuteronomic BlockHead
Marshmelos, Tertiary BlockHead

The Commissioners of Cover-Up are played by:

DarkoDrekko, Facepalm Operator
Fr33KoolAide, Funkadoodle of Dysfunctionality

The Baker Street Badgers are played by:

Homer Sharif, Confusionist
TooCoolNotSlimVirgin, Eraser Operator
WassaMattahHugh, Chief Interlocutor
Mock Umbridge, Lunacy Consultant

The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment are played by:

Moulton Lava, Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement
JWSurfeit, Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergency block, deadmin, decrat[edit]

For the abusive blocks you made and for readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into pages (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed) I have emergency desysopped and decrated you as well as blocked you for two weeks. Fr33kman 04:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I regret to inform you that you are mistaken. JWS did not add any personal or private information whatsoever. He added a parody that contained naught but a comedic flight of fancy. You have unjustly emasculated an innocent man. —Firelion 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the rest of private data. Matanya 13:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. Fr33kman 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you did not notice, JWS, you have been unblocked at 15:59, 30 March 2011, by Hillgentleman. This had been proposed on Babel, and there was no objection. Good luck. --Abd 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lojze Zupanc[edit]

Hello i have one request please can you delete page about Lojze Zupanc? There is one mistake in his last name there is z with small letter or if you write this Zupanc z with (Z)

--ZakalP 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Udacity model[edit]

cheers -<Hillgentleman| ~ | > 00:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]