Wikiversity:Babel/archive/2010

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiversity for China[edit]

I would like to apply for a new page of Wikiversity in Chinese. Any objection?

Go ahead, but as I know there are more than 5 languages in China. Look, there are already a lot of pages: Category:ZH.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Enjoy!


Wikiversity discussion at strategy.wiki[edit]

Please come and visit the Wikiversity discussion at strategy.wiki so we can make any suggestions, recommendations, etc, to the WMF for future planning. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

some picks:

Important![edit]

All who hasn't seen the debate at en.wv should take a look. In short: A questionable project have made Jimbo Wales react in quite harsh ways, including discussing closure of the Wikiversity-project with the Board of Trustees -Kaj 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a waste of valuable time and community resources. Wales is not going to tolerate anything that he doesn't consider fit for the project, and it doesn't look like he will start discussing with the community before he takes any action. And wikimedians who oppose him will always have some ways to air their points. Nothing will change. All wikiversity can do is to keep up the good work. My only concern is that the thinly veiled threat of closure signals the trend of resorting to general and long term measures to temporary and specific problems. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidates for Custodianship/Erkan Yilmaz[edit]

Guys, I propose that we give User:Erkan Yilmaz the custodian tools. He is know as a very friendly and helpful wikiversiter on de:, en: and tr: wikiversities, where he has experience as custodian and bureaucrat. He would be very valuable to our multi-lingual custodian team on Beta. What do you think? <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea. --JWSchmidt 09:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Darklama[edit]

Darklama has asked for a re-evaluation of his custodianship. //Kaj 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please someone add it in Mediawiki:Sitenotice, ----Erkan Yilmaz 10:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. //Kaj 10:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Brick and mortar collaboration[edit]

Please help fill in the blanks. ( Blackall, Ciprian, James Neill, Teemu!) <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I at all have not understood about what speech? It is possible more in detail? S.J. 17:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This is just to check, across wikiversities, how many colleges or institutions (in the meat-space) are using wikiversity. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a question of the real accredited schools and institutes? This information for what purpose gathers? S.J. 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Brick and mortar collaboration, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Licenses[edit]

The upload form currently lacks a drop down box to allow uploaders to easily indicate a licence. It would probably be useful to create the page MediaWiki:Licenses, similar to en:MediaWiki:Licenses but based upon the licence templates available. That selection does look limited and may need expanding though first. Adambro 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Other option could be: changing somehow the upload, so it immediately directs to commons for uploading? As I see the upload at commons is available in different languages: commons:Commons:Upload.
Some thoughts about commons upload and/or local uploads: en:Wikiversity talk:Licensing policy#Discussion, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 08:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Developing English language content...[edit]

Is that alright here at Beta Wikiversity? EME44

Hello Eme, I guess you don`t mean content about: English language, more content in English language? What topics do you think about? --User:Erkan Yilmaz 01:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right. I mean content in the English language. I had nothing too specific in mind right now. EME44
Eme, you know how it works at WV, you are a long time editor. I know you know where the Wikiversity namespace articles are for rereading.
I hope you will use this wiki in the spirit of policy (see your talk page or recent edit at meta on: 26 March 2010).
Why not show what you would do by creating something in your user page + sub pages there? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Licensing policy[edit]

imported from en:. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 08:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010 on English Wikiversity[edit]

Everybody is welcome to participate in the Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010 on English Wikiversity.

This is related to the recent controversial "emergency" steward actions by User:Jimbo Wales on English Wikiversity. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

meta:Petition to Shut Down Wikiversity[edit]

Might be of interest to some users here, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have documented evidence that when Raul654 accused me as follows: "he's a fool or he's lying"; he himself had his facts wrong. And, after a 30-minute telephone conversation where he had promised to listen to my evidence and give me fair consideration, he ultimately elected not to apologize for his labeling me based on his own misinformation (he thought WP:Reward Board monies all go to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is patently false). While I will not be so juvenile as to call Mark Pellegrini a "troll", it is important to note that he has established a reputation for being rash, unreasonable, and rude. Based on that, I dismiss his effort to see Wikiversity closed down. -- Thekohser 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

meta:Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity is now closed as unsuccessful; see the "Closing comments" section of that page for details. --A. B. 14:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Moulton[edit]

Please delete this userpage created by an IP. Thanks. Adambro 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's think about this. To prevent undue drama, let's try to list as many relevant arguments as we can:
  • The page itself contains information that is previously known to be accurate.
  • Moulton is not supposed to edit on Wikimedia therefore he doesn't need a userpage.
  • However, there is no way we can prevent him from editing from ip or other sources. And well, some of his contributions may be useful. In such cases it would be better to actually know who he is.
  • Let's say we revert every single edit of Moulton's on every wikimedia project. Then the existence of this page neither harms nor benefits Wikimedia.
  • All in all, Letting this page sit quietly would cause less drama deleting it, because there is no doubt he would come back and put it up again. After all, why should we waste our time deleting here and there, blocking left and right? Please don't bring the drama to Beta. We have things far more important to do, like hosting Wikiversities in several languages: category:pages by language.
<Hillgentleman| ~ | > 12:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no desire to "bring the drama to Beta", but I don't wish for the project to be an apparently a safe haven for globally banned users. Allowing Moulton to have a user page here could be seen as suggesting it is. Would you agree that Beta shouldn't be such a place? Since he is globally banned his userpage has no value, here or anywhere. It would be very straightforward to delete this page and protect it to prevent recreation, making it unlikely there will be any further problems and demonstrating that Beta doesn't welcome banned users who want to evade blocks to edit. Adambro 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Moulton has used the user page in a fake signature for IP posts while circumventing blocks. This is inappropriate conduct and the page should be deleted.Ottava Rima 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is this even being discussed? Delete it and move on with your lives. Kaldari 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Adam, I welcome those who come here to do valuable contributions and to build the site; and I don't welcome those who come here to do nothing but cause drama. Everything is clear from the edit history of each person. In the end, there is no policy which says that we can't have user pages for banned users. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 07:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, "there is no policy which says that we can't have user pages for banned users", but I am sure that you would acknowledge that the lack of a policy is not in itself a good reason to do or not do something, we can't expect to have policies for every occasion. Is it not the case that turning a blind eye and allowing a banned user to contribute here might give the impression that Beta doesn't take its responsibilities seriously? Should Beta be seen as a safe haven for globally banned users? Adambro 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Adam, please check your facts before you speak, and refrain from using evocative language. Moulton hardly ever edits here, except for helping to fix the research guidelines. His work on Wikimedia Ethics stays in English wikiversity. Our experience here shows that his userpage can be a bait for people like you; if you take the bait and delete it he would use that as an excuse to annoy the heck out of you. If you just ignore it you will get peace. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 00:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hillgentleman - I have dealt with Moulton for a long time and was friends with him before then. I would take any responsibility for the deletion and he can bother me all he wants like he always does. The problem right now is him advertising the page over at meta. Ottava Rima 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete that page. This page was also on en.wv. Userpages are here for users.--Juan de Vojníkov 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? You say "Userpages are here for users" but this user has been globally banned from contributing to WMF projects and this page only exists because they've evaded their block to create it. User:Moulton is not active here even if the same person is by editing anonymously. I don't see the value of a userpage for a user who is globally banned and so isn't active under that username. Adambro 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Juan, Moulton is using the page to give the impression that he is posting with an account. This is false representation. Ottava Rima 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, I am using my bio page to provide an accurate personal identification in my signature. I would be happy, if you insist, to add a second link to disclose that I am globally site-banned by an as-yet unreviewed personal edict of Jimbo Wales. —Moulton 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Juan is right. From time to time I contribute academic material to the site, in support of the work of other scholars who value accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online educational media. People in the education community have a right to review the academic credentials of those working to create valuable content in these pages. —Moulton 07:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The page in question was created 19:42, 18 September 2008 by Moulton. It was subjected to an out-of-process deletion 19 February 2009. "his userpage has no value" <-- I don't agree. For one thing, it is a reminder of the sorry fact that some Wikimedians go to great effort to destroy wiki content and persecute honest Wikiversity participants. --JWSchmidt 16:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "globally banned" <-- I can't find the Wikimedia policy on global bans. --JWSchmidt 16:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    See Managing Global Accounts in the Steward's Handbook. It appears to me that this is what happened to my SUL on December 10, 2008. —Moulton 23:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Désolé de répondre en français, mais j'ai peur que les traductions par logiciel détournent mon l'idée d'origine. Mais j'aimerais ajouter mon opinion sur ce qui se déroule. Deux choses sont à différencier à mon avis. L'attitude d'un utilisateur sur les projets de la fondation et l'utilisation d'un projet pour en discuter. Si un utilisateur se fait bannir de certain projets de la fondation, cela prouve un très très gros problème. Se faire bannir de certain projets est un signe de mauvaise conduite et de non respect totale des usages et de l'utilisation à des fins personnels des wikis de la fondation. Maintenant sur le fond de la contestation, cela ne me regarde pas et j'ai pas envie de perdre mon temps à lire les tenants et les aboutissants des ces discussion. Mais derrières tout cela il ne faut pas qu'un déblocage sur l'un des projets devienne pour l'utilisateur en question un lieu de contestation et de déballage publique de la haine. Betawikiversity n'a pas cet objectif, et les pages utilisateurs du projet encore moins. Il est dangereux pour un projet d'être un lieu de diffusion des reproches que l'on a vis-à-vis des autres personnes ou projets. Si cette personnes en a le besoin, qu'il ouvre un blog ou un site indépendant. De même, les utilisateurs ne doivent pas être utiliser comme levier d'aide pour induire des idées. Cela ne peut être que malsain pour tout le monde. Voilà mon opinion sur ce que j'ai l'air de comprendre. Désolé si je me trompe sur le sujet. Crochet.david 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Je suis désolé que vous vous trompez dans votre analyse de la situation. Moulton 03:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Autocracy, Bureaucracy, and Baletocracy[edit]

Speaking somewhat enigmatically, Leo Tolstoy said of War and Peace that it was "not a novel, even less is it a poem, and still less an historical chronicle."

We may similarly puzzle over the nature of the Chronicles of Wikipedia Review (which I daresay are longer than Tolstoy's four-volume opus).

At least Tolstoy was honest enough to appreciate that a well-told story about human affairs and human events is at best a work of historical fiction.

In WikiCulture, there is a routine bureaucratic practice known as baleting -- a cyberspace term of art that is a contraction of "ban and delete."  It is said that history is written by the victors, who have an annoying habit of telling their side of the story, while "baleting" the version told by those whom they have conquered, defeated, and subjugated.

Last summer, JWSchmidt was tediously researching the history pages of Wikimedia Foundation projects, trying to piece together the clues to a number of unsolved mysteries.  Not surprisingly, he ran into a number of "baleted" entries where something had been oversighted or redacted, leaving an intriguing hole in the record.  He found so many examples of this, that the record began to look like Swiss cheese.  Every once in a while, his careful sleuthing turned up a tidbit that filled one or more of the holes in the Swiss cheese.

What surprised me was how inconsequential so much of this buried, baleted, and redacted material was.  People were going to a lot of trouble to hide material that would otherwise have been so far below radar that no one would have noticed it anyway.

The same thing happened last summer on Wikipedia Review.  The Four Moderators of the Apocalypse were on Defcon Five, burying and baleting content that was so silly and inconsequential that it's hard to fathom what they were so alarmed about.

My best guess is that they were embarrassed and scandalized by the silliness and banality of it all.  But if so, why not just laugh it off and forget about it?

What was so problematic that the Four Moderators of the Apocalypse found it necessary to cut off my air supply and otherwise extinguish my voice?

Surely it can't be because I was beating their brains out?

Moulton 10:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

P2PU[edit]

Has anyone looked into P2PU? It looks like another interesting model for an online university. —Moulton 11:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010[edit]

Wikimania 2010, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is accepting submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, and tutorials related to the Wikimedia projects or free content topics in general. The conference will be held from July 9-11, 2010 in Gdansk, Poland. For more information, check the official Call for Participation. Cbrown1023 02:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

see http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule#Wikiversity and
<Erkan_Yilmaz__> btw http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WikiversityWikimania2010.pdf
<Erkan_Yilmaz__> and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2010-July/002210.html
<Erkan_Yilmaz__> about the recordings of it later being uploaded to commons
<Erkan_Yilmaz__> am I wrong or is this info about presentations not even "told" @WV?
----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 03:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Import needed[edit]

I believe this is in Estonian based on what a user told me (after I thought it might be German): [1]. I will be deleting it from the English Wikiversity in a few days. If someone wants to keep it, please import it to Beta, where such pages can be kept. Ottava Rima 17:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

German??? Anyway please leave behind a redirect to point the wikiversiter to the new location Strateegilise_planeerimise_konspekt. Regards, <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Google Translate says Estonian. Jon Awbrey 03:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Chance for Polish Wikiversity[edit]

Good eveninig!
Why Polish people, who have got a Wikipedia with around over 700 000 articles (4th), haven't got a separate project of universities. I don't know.
So I want to change it. I'd like to be a custodian on Beta. I think that a new separate project, will help with gathering people together to editing Wikiversity.
All in all, please give us a chance.
I'm sorry for my bad English and if it is necessary I can write in Polish.
So I am starting discussion about electing a Polish custodian.
With regards
Wandal (strona|dyskusja) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't forget to ask some Polish participants to comment on your candidacy. Thanks.<Hillgentleman| ~ | > 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it tomorrow. Wandal (strona|dyskusja) 10:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Polish Wikiversity:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 05:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

  1. Support Support Best candidate for a Polish custodian. 95.48.8.186 11:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)no IP contribs vote counted.Crochet.david 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support Support Best candidate for a Polish custodian.(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamael (talkcontribs) .).
    I'd like to see more Polish content here before any talk about a custodian. If you can get enough participants to work on projects to justify a Polish Wikiversity, that would be great. Ottava Rima 14:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support Support Best candidate for a Polish custodian. PS Wandal, ile ludzi potrzebujesz?(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babciak (talkcontribs) .)
  4. Support Support Best candidate for a Polish custodian. Pjer 18:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support Support Best candidate for a Polish custodian. Rybajunior 10:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support Support Best candidate for a Polish custodian. --Cysioland 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for Custodianship - Devunt[edit]

See Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Devunt.
--JWSchmidt 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

There are a number of media files with unknown copyright status that are not used anywhere on Beta. I would suggest these are deleted and have added them to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. There are also several broken redirects which it would be helpful to delete so Special:BrokenRedirects remains useful. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with these. Thanks. Adambro 10:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I informe the uploader for the deletion request. After 7 days without solution, the file can be delete.Crochet.david 10:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. Adambro 11:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Moulton/User:JWSchmidt[edit]

Moulton's account is globally locked for various reasons. I note recently that JWSchmidt has used his bureaucrat rights to rename Moulton to Barsoom and then back again which has resulted in Moulton's local account being detached from his global account and the global lock. This means that Moulton can now edit here. As far as I am aware there has been no discussion here about this quite unconventional sequence of events and I'm also concerned that JWSchmidt is apparently turning a blind eye to Moulton using this project to document disputes on other projects. As far as I can tell, all of his contributions since he was "unblocked" here on 23 July 2010 have related to disputes elsewhere rather than relating to using Beta as "a multilingual hub for the coordination of Wikiversity projects in different languages".

I am therefore concerned both that JWSchmidt took such unconventional steps to get around Moulton's global lock with apparently no discussion and also that now Moulton is able to edit, he appears to simply want to use Beta as an alternative to the English Wikiversity and just document and comment on disputes there. I would ask that we could discuss the reasons for JWSchmidt taking this action but I'd also ask that he remind Moulton that Beta shouldn't be used in this way. Adambro 11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Adambro is concerned about the absurd "lock" that was put on Moulton's account. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Since the lock was obviously an error, I uncoupled Moulton's local account from the bogus lock. Since Moulton was blocked from the English language Wikiversity in violation of policy it is important that there be a safe haven where the Wikiversity community can document, comment on, and learn from what happened to Moulton. The Wikiversity community might eventually decide to create a Wikiversity policy that calls for banning from Wikiversity any disruptive Wikimedia functionaries who impose bad blocks and enforce invalid account locks. --JWSchmidt 14:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • To my mind, John, it would be more appropriate to establish a policy and practice to lovingly educate Wikimedia functionaries whose anachronistic practices have long outlived their functional usefulness. —Moulton 15:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer discussion over the use of blocks and bans; for example, I even argued against the block that was imposed on Centaur of attention. However, it is an open question: will the Wikiversity community decide that some Wikimedia functionaries cannot be educated? --JWSchmidt 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As you may know, John, the well-known Wikipedian who operated the Centaur of attention account was eventually brought up on charges before ArbCom and was unanimously judged guilty of egregious abuse of power. He was stripped of his Admin bits and thereafter all but vanished from Wikipedia. —Moulton 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not "concerned about the absurd "lock" that was put on Moulton's account". It isn't "absurd" and nor do I have a problem with the lock, rather the somewhat unorthodox methods employed to get around it. If the lock was "obviously an error", have you considered raising this issue with MaxSem so he might correct his "error"? Is there a policy or similar which says "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock or is that just your opinion? Since it is also only your opinion that "Moulton was blocked from the English language Wikiversity in violation of policy", don't you think it would have been appropriate to discuss this before unilaterally deciding that Beta should serve as "safe haven where the Wikiversity community can document, comment on, and learn from what happened to Moulton". You seem happy to act yourself without discussion when convenient yet also quick to criticise others for doing the same. Doesn't it work both ways then? Adambro 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Does the banhammer tool work both ways, Adam? How about the criticism tool? Or the humor tool (including satire and parody). —Moulton 15:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Adambro, if you are not concerned about the lock that was put on Moulton's account then why have you been enforcing it and why did you start this discussion thread?
No. His last edit was 8 May 2010, and he joined the call for taking away Jimbo's toy banhammer. Jimbo's bad block of Moulton caused vast disruption of Wikiversity. It looks like MaxSem now realizes the damage that can be done by giving Jimbo a toy banhammer. It is a lesson that all Wikimedia functionaries should learn.
I already linked to the page at the meta-wiki that says locks are used, "to stop abuse such as spamming, vandalizing, or creating malicious account names". It is obvious that "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock.
Adambro, I had no obligation to discuss fixing an injustice that was constructed upon an obvious error. However, since you have raised this matter for discussion, I am now happy to discuss it.
I acted to repair an injustice that had been constructed upon an error. I don't know what you mean by "quick to criticise others for doing the same". Adambro, do you have an example of when I criticized someone else for fixing an error or repairing an injustice?
--JWSchmidt 15:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Moulton, unwanted posts to User talk:Adambro[edit]

Moulton continues to post messages on my talk page despite two requests that he not do so since I am not interested in entering into discussions with him. I would appreciate it if one of the administrators here would ask him to respect my wishes. Adambro 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Respecting the wishes of one's fellow scholars is a two-way street Adam. Is there some reason you decline to respect the wishes of those scholars on the English Wikiversity who wish to enter into collaborative study projects with me? —Moulton 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • @Moulton: Adam has no intention to talk to you and you know it. The way you are acting will not lead you anywhere. So please stop the edit warring. Beta is a multilingual site for policy development and Wikiversity incubation. We want to keep it free and peaceful and not too English-centric. 114.27.1.141 01:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Adam doesn't have to talk to me to communicate with me. He communicates non-verbally, which is how most people communicate when they are signalling their affective emotional state rather than articulating their cerebralized thoughts. One of my goals is to discover how to establish an empathic relationship with those who (for whatever undisclosed reasons) have elected to adopt an adversarial relationship with me. My goal here is to divine Adam's otherwise unarticulated affective emotional state with as much precision as I can muster. And I am most grateful to him for providing me with this delicious puzzle. —Moulton 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support independent warning of Moulton against harassment, with block following if warning is disregarded. Moulton, this is beyond the pale, for two reasons. First of all, don't harass a user. Period. Repeated use of a Talk page to make a point, to insist on response, is abusive, and, if continued, must be stopped. Further, beta is technically a separate wiki. Moulton, please do not use Beta to pursue a grievance about what's happening on en.wikiversity. The place for that is there, and you have means of pursuing that there. --Abd (wikiversity user) 15:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, Abd, and welcome to Beta.Wikiversity, where we have a collegial and congenial culture of scholarly ethics. Here we do not issue threats or warnings or contemplate such curiously quaint and archaic practices as immurement or Bill of Attainder. I hope you will soon adapt to our pleasurable academic lifestyle here. —Moulton 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if I'm offending local customs; however, I will not allow harassment. Incivility also disrupts a "collegial and congenial culture," and such a culture, if it allows incivility to continue, more than the transient form which takes place with ordinary human disagreements, is, stated simply, an oxymoron. I'm worried about the links you provided, Moulton, for these are the kinds of things -- on the face, I haven't read them! -- that have historically led to intervention from meta or above. I'll urge the community and custodians here to carefully consider this. But I don't have time to review them now. If any custodian here is puzzled about what to do, to balance the "collegial and congenial culture," with apparent expressions of contempt or ridicule, please feel welcome to ping me on my Wikiversity talk page, or here, which may take longer, or by email. It's possible to have both that atmosphere and proper criticism and examination of complaints. But it won't happen by magic. --Abd 17:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Abd, please provide links to edits that you view as harassment.
Abd, every time I use a talk page I want to make a point, but there is nothing abusive about that. If you are accusing Moulton of "abuse" then please provide links to the abusive edits.
--JWSchmidt 17:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I consider that any administrator here that looks at the situation will see the problem. I am not a prosecutor filing charges, I am, in fact, a kind of mediator, and I'll note, JWS, that both parties here seem to have welcomed me. Please do not complicate a simple situation by demanding proof over every word you don't like. It's offensive, and, in fact, it is especially offensive in a 'crat. Stop it, please. --Abd 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, it seems the mediator is now becoming upset, too. Well, let's not get too hung up over colloquial and ill-defined terms like "troll" or "disruption" or "abuse" (or even "harrassment"). For what it's worth, let me just reiterate that I consider conversation to be normative in a Wiki, and far preferable to such non-verbal forms of communication as immurement and suddenly imposed Bill of Attainder without discussion, without good faith efforts at conflict resolution, and without due process. —Moulton 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not upset, Moulton, just talking straight in a public space. In my office, it will be different. Let's not start with rhetoric there, okay? First we sit down, get comfortable. Maybe we make a joke or some harmless comment about the weather. And we look at each other, if we can. Who is this person? And we start asking, and we start listening. First. Long before we get to YOU BLOOMING IDIOT, HOW COULD YOU DO THAT, DON'T YOU KNOW?... etc.
  • This is a wiki. A productive conversation like this will take time. If someone is in a hurry, they'll have to go somewhere else. I predict, though, that the "hurry" will take longer if pursued. Much longer. --Abd 20:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "demanding proof over every word you don't like" <== Abd, if you are accusing me of "demanding proof" then please link to an edit where I made such a demand. "It's offensive" Abd, are you claiming that it is "offensive" to ask someone to provide evidence to support accusations of harassment and abuse? If you cannot provide evidence to support your accusations of harassment and abuse then we will all know that it is safe to ignore your unsupported accusations. Moulton came to this wiki to help develop Wikiversity policy, but he has been harassed by a few misguided Wikimedia functionaries; that is especially offensive. --JWSchmidt 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is not that Abd and others are making "unsupported accusations", it is that JWSchmidt, rather than saying he doesn't agree with the view, for example, that Moulton's behaviour constitutes harassment, he accuses others of being uncivil by making "unsupported accusations". The "accusations" are supported it's just JWSchmidt doesn't agree with them. They aren't "unsupported accusations" but "accusations" that JWSchmidt doesn't feel are appropriate. Abd might point to the history of my talk page and suggest that supports his view that Moulton's behaviour constitutes harassment. If JWSchmidt disagrees then he should explain why, why the history doesn't show behaviour which could be described as harassment, rather than pretending that the basis for Abd's "accusations" is apparently not clear. It says something that when Abd suggested to JWS that he "demanding proof over every word you don't like" JWS responds by demanding proof for where he's previously demand proof. Adambro 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"he accuses others of being uncivil" <== Adambro, please provide a link to where I accused someone of being uncivil. The "accusations" are supported <== Adambro, please provide links to edits that were "harassment" and "abuse". "If JWSchmidt disagrees then he should explain why" <-- I've asked for evidence of "harassment" and "abuse". If such evidence is provided, then we can discuss the accusations. We can also discuss the appearance that there is an on-going attempt to game the system by claiming that a talk page discussion is harassment and abuse. "JWS responds by demanding proof" <== Adambro, please provide a link to where I "demanded proof". Adambro, do you object to me asking for evidence to support accusations of "harassment" and "abuse"? --JWSchmidt 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll object. Adambro realized that this was the wrong place to take this. JWS was part of the Wikiversity community when there was an influx of what might be called "outsiders." Who began battling over projects to criticize behavior on other wikis. The Wikiversity "establishment," which included JWS, was unable to deal with this, and JWS remains unable to deal with it or with problems like it. In January 2008, he would have become a 'crat, and could have become a 'crat years before, but he declined it as something he didn't need. By the end of the year, he'd lost his sysop bit. He was unable to cope with the situation, and the Wikiversity community was badly damaged; compounded by a similar situation in March of this year. And, no, I'm not going to provide any evidence for all this, it's the opinion of an observer, take it or leave it. It can take days or weeks to put together evidence for a formal review, and, quite simply, I don't care enough to do that here. I'm here to help intervene in a conflict or situation that could cause a lot of damage here, if not addressed. JWS is part of the problem. He could be part of the solution if he'd start listening and learning instead of constantly demanding explanations, and then, if on some day I'm crazy enough to think it will be useful to answer (I've done this many times, and was actually criticized on Wikiversity for doing it), he simply replies with more questions and more questions.
This Babel discussion will go nowhere, I can rather confidently predict. So, my suggestion to everyone here: stop it. Stop arguing. Stop debating matters which won't be decided on this page. Adambro has a problem. Isn't that clear? He's now requested help for the problem in the place designed for that as a second step. (He's already done the first step, he asked Moulton to stop, and Moulton insisted.) That help will come if an neutral custodian cares enough to take a look at the situation and decide how to help. If nobody is willing to do that, I'd say that this community is dead. It may flop around for a while, but eventually the inevitable will come. One of the ways to ask for help is to ask a custodian. Another way is to seek or accept some kind of mediation. If these users want the problem to stop, if Adambro wants have his Talk page not filled with unwelcome comment, and if Moulton wants Adambro to listen, both can be arranged, but we are all volunteers, and nobody here is obligated, ever, to listen to anyone. Got that straight, JWS? For listening to occur, it's necessary for a safe place to be set up. Someone trying to force another to listen is not going to work. It never works, unless you file a lawsuit, and even then..... --Abd 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"projects to criticize behavior on other wikis" <== Abd, what projects are you talking about? "he declined it as something he didn't need" <== Abd, my reason for not wanting bureaucrat tools at the English language Wikiversity is a matter of public record. I believe that Custodian mentors should have the power to remove Custodial tools from a probationary Custodian who they mentor, and do so at any time during the probationary period. I could not in good conscience take on the responsibility of bureaucratship at the English language Wikiversity if I was expected to grant probationary custodianship to candidates under conditions where the mentor could not control the probationary Custodian. "He was unable to cope with the situation" <== Abd, please explain how any sysop can cope with a godking who can be gamed into taking unwise action. "start listening and learning instead of constantly demanding explanations" <== Abd, please link to a series of edits where I was "constantly demanding explanations". I have requested evidence of harassment and abuse so that we can discuss accusations of harassment and abuse. I stand ready to listen and learn if you provide evidence that supports your accusations. "he simply replies with more questions" <== Abd, is there are remaining questions to be asked, I will ask them. If all the answers are in and there are still unsupported accusations then I will ignore those accusations. "I'd say that this community is dead" <== Abd, this community has been functioning for the past four years. Are you suggesting that this wiki community is dead if it does not follow the procedures that you are familiar with at another website? "nobody here is obligated, ever, to listen to anyone" <== Any Custodian who does not want to listen to community members and respond conscientiously should resign. --JWSchmidt 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note I am grateful for Abd's assistance here. Just to avoid any confusion, I've also posted a note about this on Wikiversity:Request custodian action/En since I realised that would be the more appropriate venue since it was potential something a custodian would need to deal with. It probably makes sense to keep discussion about this here now though. Adambro 16:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Adam, would you like to appoint our mutual colleague, Abd, as your counselor and/or agent, to field comments, questions, feedback, and mini-essays from me? —Moulton 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Both of you are welcome in my Office, any time. But please do not break the furniture. The chairs are for sitting on, not throwing or standing on. --Abd 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Close this discussion. First, the party starting this has placed a request for custodian action, which is more appropriate, it can be seen there. Second, the party complained about is unlikely to continue the behavior that concerned the first party, in which case the request for custodian action may produce a warning but nothing worse. All parties are invited to my office for an office party. Somebody with some sense please close or archive this before it turns into even more of a monster. --Abd 20:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Resignation[edit]

Hi I have just resigned on my custodians rights here. I found no time for Wikiversity Beta nor for my will to help new bearing communities here. I dont think I will find more time for the future. So have a good luck in here and do not flame much:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving and renaming[edit]

The Swedish comunity has desided to abandon the awkward name Wikiversitetet (to many tetetet..te..) and instead use the regular Wikiversity, so I wanted to give you a heads up to a lot of moving and renaming of pages during some days. Wikiversitetet will still be used in some cases to ensure that the "states of WikiU"-statistics wont be affekted. //Kaj 08:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The states of WikiU check the edition in all page in a Top-category, for the sv.wv it's Category:SV, so that if the name page start by « wikiversity » or by anyelse is not a problem, but not place this page in the « Wikiversity » category. All pages linked with the sv.wv must be in category, sub-category and sub-sub-category of category:SV. Crochet.david 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Good, that how i belived it worked, but then I saw that meta:Language_committee/Status/wv/sv uses the Wikiversitetet category. So we desided to rename de pages but keep everything in subcategories to the Wikiversitetet category (a subcategory to category:SV), that way it work any way. //Kaj 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Kaj: All right. Enjoy! Njuta! David: Thanks! <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RecentChangesCamp (RCC)[edit]

Anyone going to the RCC in Canberra (2011-01-28 until 2011-01-30)? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stepping down[edit]

Now when the Swedish Wikiversity is up and running I'm not in need of the sysop-tools anymore, so I'm resigning as custodian. //Kaj 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New project: "Collection"?[edit]

Something I floated on the Colloquium at enwikiversity; please consider the creation of a new namespace and/or special page involved. TeleComNasSprVen 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if betawikiversity is the hub-wikiversties, why create here an namespace which not create in the core mediawiki software and use only for english-speaking wikiversity. One of aims about betawikiversity is incubate wikiversity in all language. This namespace will not work for other language because each language would have "Collection" translated and need to be translated to create correctly namespace after leaving the betawikiversity.Crochet.david 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone could want to put together a collection in any language from pages at Beta Wikiversity, or perhaps even create a collection on the same topic in various languages. One example might be for all the policy pages in all the languages available for printing out and distributing to encourage more people to learn about and use Wikiversity. Beta Wikiversity has only one "Wikiversity:" namespace that has managed to work with many languages. Why couldn't it work with a new namespace? --darklama 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Who need the namespace among wikiversites présent in the betawikiversity ? Crochet.david 08:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It could help with setting up Special:Book, which is enabled on many wikis. When it is transferred over to a new wiki, it should be translated, much like meta's different translations of the "Help" namespace (e.g. "Hilfe", "Hjälp", etc.). TeleComNasSprVen 08:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Swahili Wikiversity[edit]

I've been experimenting with a Wikiversity using swahili. Is it anything I need to think about? Direct link Hakan 07:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. You can start creating lessons and get more people involved in a specific learning project. We can help you in setting up the maintenance. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 10:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)