text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 2

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 13-25
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Take the Book I Quiz on Moodle

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
For the first half of this course, you should concentrate on deciding the topic you will write about. If you have an idea already, go ahead and start writing your initial rough draft. Make certain that the topic you select is sufficiently broad to write about and worthy of analysis.

Questions
After reading pages 13-25 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What are the two odd things about humans referenced on page 13? Why are these things important?
 * 2) Are behavorial laws like physical laws? Why or why not?
 * 3) What is the materialist view?
 * 4) What is the religious view?
 * 5) Can science be used to prove one of these views?
 * 6) What is the problem with studying man from the outside?
 * 7) Can the controlling power show itself in the universe?
 * 8) What is the point of the letter metaphor?
 * 9) What is the Life-Force philosophy?
 * 10) What's wrong with this philosophy?

Quiz
The Book I Quiz is now open on Moodle. It's 25 free response questions drawn from this unit, with each question worth 1 point. Once again, answers will be graded based on completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 2


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 3

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 29-36
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Study for the Book II Quiz next week
 * 5) Check scores from last unit quiz (optional but highly recommended!)

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
For the first half of this course, you should concentrate on deciding the topic you will write about. If you have an idea already, go ahead and start writing your initial rough draft. Make certain that the topic you select is sufficiently broad to write about and worthy of analysis.

Questions
After reading pages 29-36 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What do Christians not need to believe?
 * 2) What is the first big division of Christianity?
 * 3) What is the second big division of Christianity?
 * 4) What is Pantheism? How does it differ from Christianity?
 * 5) What's wrong with asking for a simple religion?
 * 6) Why is reality odd?
 * 7) What's Dualism? What errors does it face?
 * 8) What must you have before something can be considered bad?
 * 9) What problem does the Bad Power face?
 * 10) What does the author refer to the world and as Christianity as on page 36?

Quiz
The quiz on this unit will open next week. It will consist of 25 free response questions similar to the weekly questions. Any material from Book II is fair game and you should begin studying now to maximize your score. Each question is worth 1 point and will be graded based upon completeness and comprehension.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 3


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 6

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 81-99
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Study for the Book III Quiz next week

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Exam
You should continue writing your rough draft this week, as the initial submission period will open next week. When you are finished, have someone review your essay and incorporate their suggestions into a working copy. The earlier you turn in your essay, the more time you will have to revise it for final submission.

Questions
After reading pages 81-99 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What is the Christian idea of marriage?
 * 2) How does the Church regard divorce? How does this relate to justice?
 * 3) How does Lewis justify man as head in a marriage?
 * 4) Why is forgiveness the most unpopular Christian virtue?
 * 5) How do we learn to forgive? Why should we use this way?
 * 6) Why is there a distinction between killing and murder?
 * 7) How do you hate an action, but not the person who performs the action?
 * 8) What is the Great Sin? Why is it so bad and how do you combat it?
 * 9) Why can't a proud person know God?
 * 10) How do you know a humble man?

Quiz
The quiz on this unit will open next week. It will consist of 25 free response questions similar to the weekly questions. Any material from Book III is fair game and you should begin studying now to maximize your score. Each question is worth 1 point and will be graded based upon completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 6


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 4

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 37-51
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Take the Book II Quiz on Moodle

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
For the first half of this course, you should concentrate on deciding the topic you will write about. If you have an idea already, go ahead and start writing your initial rough draft. Make certain that the topic you select is sufficiently broad to write about and worthy of analysis.

Questions
After reading pages 37-51 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What is the long story of human history? What problem does it face?
 * 2) What's so important about the "queer dreams" and selection of a culture?
 * 3) Why is it significant that Jesus appeared to the Jews? What difference allowed for a successful mission?
 * 4) What two things could Jesus be? What can Jesus not be?
 * 5) What is the formula of Christianity?
 * 6) What "hole" has man fallen into?
 * 7) Why is repentance necessary to return to God?
 * 8) Why did God become man?
 * 9) What three things make up the Christ life? Why is each important and which is most important?
 * 10) Why doesn't God just invade the world and wipe out evil?

Test
The Book II Quiz is now open on Moodle. It's composed of 25 free response questions drawn from this unit, with each question worth 1 point. Once again, answers will be graded based on completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 4


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 7

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 100-116
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Take the Book III Test on Moodle
 * 5) Turn in Essay for review (optional but highly recommended!)

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Questions
After reading pages 100-116 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What is charity? Why has its meaning changed over time?
 * 2) Why is charity important?
 * 3) What is hope?
 * 4) What are the wrong ways to deal with longing?
 * 5) What is faith?
 * 6) Why is faith so important?
 * 7) What's so important about fighting evil?
 * 8) What should we do if we find something that we don't understand?
 * 9) What does God care about and why?
 * 10) Why is the change referenced on page 114 so important?

Quiz
The Book III Quiz is now open on Moodle. It's composed of 25 free response questions drawn from this unit, with each question worth 1 point. As always, answers will be graded based on completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 7


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 10

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 152-175
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Take the Book IV Quiz on Moodle
 * 5) Upload the Final Essay to Moodle by the end of the week.

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
The final submission of your Literary Response Essay is due at the end of the week. Remember to proofread your essay and consider having another person look it over before turning it in to Moodle. No credit will be given for late essays, so you should take every precaution to turn it in early. If Moodle does not work, email the essay to the instructor as an attachment.

Questions
After reading pages 152-175 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What makes the Christian way different?
 * 2) What is the ultimate function of the Church?
 * 3) Why does God want people to count the cost of being Christian?
 * 4) Why do Christians have troubles in their lives?
 * 5) What does it mean if a Christian's behavior does not change after salvation?
 * 6) Why should Christians live according to the Lord's Commandments?
 * 7) What problem can appear with Christians and money?
 * 8) How is the Christian idea like evolution?
 * 9) What does the world think of Christianity? Are they right or wrong? How do you know?
 * 10) What comes to us when we look for God?

Quiz
The Book IV Quiz is now open on Moodle. It's composed of 25 free response questions drawn from this unit, with each question worth 1 point. Once again, answers will be graded based on completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 10


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 5

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 55-80
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Study for the Book III Quiz in two weeks
 * 5) Check scores from last unit quiz (optional but highly recommended!)

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
Over the past four weeks, you have worked on discerning a topic for your final essay. You should start writing your rough draft now. Even though it's a rough draft, you should make the best effort possible. When you are finished, have someone review your essay and incorporate their suggestions into a working copy.

Questions
After reading pages 55-80 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What is the purpose of moral rules?
 * 2) What are the three parts of morality?
 * 3) Why can't humanity realize a moral state?
 * 4) What are the cardinal virtues?
 * 5) What does the New Testament show in terms of how a Christian society should act?
 * 6) What problem do we face when implementing social morality?
 * 7) What two things are involved in a moral choice?
 * 8) What is the only thing morality is concerned with?
 * 9) Why is chastity so unpopular?
 * 10) What is the core problem in relation to sexual morality?

Quiz
The quiz on this unit will open in two weeks. It will consist of 25 free response questions similar to the weekly questions. Any material from Book III is fair game and you should begin studying now to maximize your score. Each question is worth 1 point and will be graded based upon completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 5


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 8

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 119-138
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Study for the Book IV Quiz in two weeks
 * 5) Turn in Essay for review (optional but highly recommended!)
 * 6) Check scores from last unit quiz (optional but highly recommended!)

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
This is the second week that the Essay will be accepted and final week where you will have a chance to resubmit. Essays turned in last week will be returned by the beginning of next week and essays turned in this week will be returned by the end of next week. This will give you either one or two weeks to revise your essay and submit the final copy.

Questions
After reading pages 119-138 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) What is theology and why is it important?
 * 2) What is the popular conception of Christianity? What's so shocking about what Christianity actually says?
 * 3) What is the difference between begetting and making?
 * 4) What is man missing in his natural state?
 * 5) How is the three-personal God like dimensions?
 * 6) Why does God not suffer from the constraints of time?
 * 7) How does love show that God is at least two people?
 * 8) What does the union of the Father and the Son produce?
 * 9) What is a good infection?
 * 10) What is the only purpose of Christianity?

Quiz
The quiz on this unit will open in two weeks. It will consist of 25 free response questions similar to the weekly questions. Any material from Book IV is fair game and you should begin studying now to maximize your score. Each question is worth 1 point and will be graded based upon completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 8


text:
User talk:Imago blue

 Hello Imago blue, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How to request deletion
I deleted the page you created per your request. Next time you have that problem, copy and past this:. It will put up a template that explains why the page should be deleted. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Imago blue


text:
Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 9

Assignments

 * 1) Read pg. 139-151
 * 2) Write a well developed response that expands upon a theme or concept from this week's reading.
 * 3) Answer weekly question set
 * 4) Study for the Book IV Quiz next week
 * 5) Revise essay in preparation for final submission

Discussion
This week's discussion will be held at TIME on DATE in the AWF virtual universe, Agape World at the AWF School facility.There is a section on the talk page where you can post topics and questions for us to go over. If you are unable to make it, your questions can also be posted in a separate section to the talk page, where I will do my best to answer them shortly.

Final Essay
You will receive your initial submission back either at the beginning or end of this week (see last week's page for exact schedule). You should use this week to revise your essay in preparation for final submission next week. Remember to proofread your essay and consider having another person look it over before turning it in to Moodle.

Questions
After reading pages 139-151 and writing a response, please answer the following 10 questions in complete sentences. Each question will be worth one point, for a total of ten points possible.
 * 1) Why did the Son of God become man?
 * 2) What is the natural life focused on?
 * 3) According to page 145, what must a Christian not be? How does a Christian adopt one of these two philosophies?
 * 4) How does the Beauty and the Beast relate to Christ and us?
 * 5) What's so significant about the usage of "Our Father" in the Lord's Prayer?
 * 6) How do we become more like Christ?
 * 7) What's so important about the invisible Christ?
 * 8) Are we able to change on our own? Why are we able to change?
 * 9) What does Lewis mean by referring to people as mirrors of Christianity? Can God use non-Christians to do his work?
 * 10) How does God see us? How does he choose to see us as and why?

Quiz
The quiz on this unit will open next week. It will consist of 25 free response questions similar to the weekly questions. Any material from Book IV is fair game and you should begin studying now to maximize your score. Each question is worth 1 point and will be graded based upon completeness and comprehension.

title: Mere Christianity (CBL)/Week 9


text:
User talk:Jalesh~enwikiversity

 Hello Jalesh, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Geoff Plourde 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Geoff Plourde 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jalesh. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jalesh~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jalesh~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:EK~enwikiversity

 Hello EK, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Geoff Plourde 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Geoff Plourde 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called EK. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name EK~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:EK~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Jorgeprax

 Hello Jorgeprax, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Geoff Plourde 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Geoff Plourde 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jorgeprax


text:
User:Rouedraogo/Second Life for Career and Culture

Exploring Culture and Career Using 'Second Life'

 * {| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="350px"

 * bgcolor="#b4b4b4" style="border: 0px #cccccc solid;" |Subject: Career Exploration
 * }

 * {| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="350px"

 * bgcolor="#b4b4b4" style="border: 0px #cccccc solid;" |Sub-Subject: AVID, EOPS Counseling, Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, etc. (sub-subjects will requires lesson-plan editing)
 * }

 * {| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="350px"

 * bgcolor="#b4b4b4" style="border: 0px #cccccc solid;" |Length/Duration: roughly 1 week pre-discussion and planning, added to 42 hours on Second Life (minimum)
 * }

 * {| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="350px"

 * bgcolor="#b4b4b4" style="border: 0px #cccccc solid;" |Technologies Used: Second Life, Internet, Photoshop Elements (optional)
 * }
 * }

{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: #e4e3c8; border: 2px solid #969696; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Introduction
Career exploration is a necessity for both high school-aged and college-aged students. At times it is difficult for a person to know exactly what a career is like or just if s/he has an interest in a topic unless s/he gets to experience it first. That experience is unfortunately not something that comes by easily in real life due to -a lack of a program that offers such opportunity to students, - community unemployment levels, -community industry variety, -or available student guidance and/or low self-esteem, so why not do it virtually? The following lesson is an extensive 'career shadowing' process for students. In conjunction to this lesson of career exploration is also cultural exploration. Seeing what career you wish to follow is a wonderful experience in itself, but is that experience going to be different based on your physical appearance? In finding themselves, their values, their personality, skills, and interests, students are encouraged to ask themselves as they search, "does the online experience differ from the real-life experience when it comes to dealing/working/socializing with others and if so, how?" and to individually compare what they see in life to what they will experience virtually in completing this lesson.

 * style="width: 40%; background-color: #cdd6ee; border: 2px solid #969696; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 10px;" |

Goals and Purpose
The purpose of this lesson is to use college/career ready standards in addition to or instead of career shadowing. The desire is to offer goal setting skills, life exploration, and career search.

It's been researched that the online setting lacks "triggers of differences", that a person's race, culture, language, gender, etc. is ignored thereby implying that there are such cultural triggers in real life. This lesson will have students explore careers using a specified avatar and to record any experiences they had based on the looks of the avatar. This lesson may result in a real-life versus online-life differences (pros/cons) when looking for a job or choosing a career. {| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * }
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: AQUA; border: 2px solid black; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Definition(s)
'Triggers of difference' according to Merryfield are described as "When they [teachers] hear a Chinese accent, see a Jordanian woman's head cover, observe a Brazilian's body language, smell curry on an Indian's breath, some Americans automatically register a consciousness of difference that may trigger discomfort, stereotypes, xenophobia, or recognition of their own ignorance of other cultures. The triggers of visual and aural differences often subconsciously make people uncomfortable or otherwise constrain people's abilities to listen, interact, and learn from others" (Merryfield, 2003, p. 160).

{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * }
 * style="width: 40%; background-color: #e4c8cd; border: 2px solid #969696; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Lesson Steps
Quote: "Closed online environments provide a secure place for people to take risks, share personal experiences, admit to the realities of prejudice and discrimination..." (Merryfield, 2003, p.158). CONTEXT After having picked a variety of career categories (variety depends on class number and personality test results), the teacher will break the class into either groups of 3 or 5, where each person will represent a particular race or cultural group. Note that this lesson plan may be used both as a project in career and life success as well as a case study. PREFACE Pre-step: Students will be offered a pretest, a questionnaire of sorts in order to gauge their "self-concepts". Students are then set up and signed up to Second Life before starting the Second Life project. With the avatar of a specific ethnicity, students will walk/fly/teleport to different settings and locations in Second Life for a least 1-2 hours a day on three separate occasions. During this time, students will visit specific locations (given by teacher) as well as miscellaneous destinations of their choosing. Students are to keep a journal where they are expected to catalog their experiences. The goals are: (1) to shadow a potential career, (2) to be exposed to career options, (3) to observe the type of treatment each avatar receives from its wanderings and (4) whether or not the student's perception of him/herself changes depending on his/her avatar.

Teacher study: Further experiences in Second Life during the project will continue to be recorded by each student. The teacher may also choose to keep a record of student behavior throughout the project using a "behavior checklist." Doing this will allow the teacher to observe whether or not the students' virtual experience of using "superior" versus "inferior" avatars affects their self-image since according to Merryfield's text "Like A Veil: Cross-cultural experiential learning online", the virtual experience lacks "triggers of differences" while PBS's 2008 Frontline report "A Digital Nation" mentions how positive self-concepts attained from one would argue, superior, avatars in the virtual world, carries to real life. After the project, students will repeat the "self-concepts" test followed by a self reflection. PROJECT Step 1. Students complete the Self Concepts Questionnaire.

Step 2. Complete a personality test (either Copes, Cops, Caps [for Interest, Values, and Skills], ASVAB, or Myers Briggs) in order to get an idea of careers that would match the individual.

Step 3. Select with teacher encouragement, at least three job categories and locate areas/businesses in Second Life, that fit the careers options chosen.

Step 4. Complete an entire length of training/internship/course or at least 42 hours online. This will be recorded by offering the teacher a series of pictures (be sure that date/time are included in image) of exploration completed at the approved training posts, along with login hours for proof.

Step 5. Complete outside research. For each job selected, find the pay rate, level of education necessary, duties etc. In doing the research, students are required to interview a professional in the careers they are exploring and virtually experiencing. Suggested interview questions will be provided by the teacher and the professional being interviewed may be the career 'mentor' (person training student(s) on career) on Second Life or a person within the community.

Step 6. Have each student present/report back to the class their findings, experience, level of difficulty, and career goals set based on online experiences.

Step 7. Students retake Self-Concepts Questionnaire.

Step 8. Only now do students discover that the teacher recorded behavioral and/or self-concepts changes (if any) of students while continuing the project. Teacher presents students with the data recorded and opens the floor up for discussion in regards to the presence or lack of 'triggers of difference'.

TO DISCUSS: (1) Were students of differing avatars treated differently from one another during their Second Life career exploration? (2) Does the 'real world' versus Second Life provide people with more, less, or the same amount of prejudice in the workplace? (3) Should 'triggers of differences' deter me from persuing a particular career option? (4) What advocacy groups, programs, and/or businesses offer support for persons of varying ethnicities in persuance of 'nontraditional' career options?

For the questions students are unable to answer, the teacher will provide them with prompts, suggestions, and contact information for that community.

Step 9. Reflect back to values, interests etc. fulfilled by the job exploration as well as the overall experience and what was learned from personal exploration and what other students with different avatars went through.

 * style="width: 60%; background-color: #c9e4c8; border: 2px solid #969696; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 10px;" |

Activity Details
AVATAR ETHNICITIES The class will break into groups of either 3 or 5 where each student within the group will possess an avatar of a different ethnicity. This may also be done with a focus on height, clothing, hair, or any other physical trait or look that can constitute a trigger of difference.' ABOUT SECOND LIFE and REGISTERING Click Here to learn more about this process. SELF-CONCEPTS QUESTIONNAIRE A teacher created questionnaire may be offered to students that ask such as questions as: Rating from 1 to 4 where 1 is Not True, 2 is Moderately True, 3 is True, and 4 is Very True, answer the following... (1) On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. (2) I feel I have much to be proud of. (3) I'm always apologizing for things. (4) If I can't do something well, there is no point in doing it at all. Otherwise, students can be guided to take the test online on such sites as: a) How is Your Self Esteem? at Queendom Length: 79 Questions > > Click Here b)  How is Your Self Esteem? at Psychology Today Length: 79 Questions > > Click Here c) Self Esteem Quz at Self Esteem Awareness Length: 15 Questions > > Click Here PLACES TO VISIT: EXPLORING BEFORE THE PROJECT Before getting started with the project, it is important to get a feel for one's surroundings.  For this reason, students will be encouraged once they sign up to Second Life and create their Avatar, to explore a series of at least 8 locations during 3 separate 1-2 hour long sessions on their own.  The initial exploration will take place as a group guided tour with the teacher.  >> Night Club >> Fraternity/sorority house or meeting place >> University or college setting >> Church or religious setting >> Store or shop (2 different types such as a grocery store, a department store etc.) >> Office environment >> cafe (or area of socialization thta is similar to cafe)  JOURNAL ENTRY EXAMPLE Date:  ... Time (start and end times):  ... Second Life image(s) of session (print screen image for example)  ... I went to (LOCATION NAME) at (COORDINATES). - Location description and rating: ... - What I saw:  ... - What I heard:  ... - What I learned:  ... - How the experience affected me and why: ... (ex) "The online discussions are like a veil that protects me and Yang; I feel safe..." (Merryfield, 2003, p.146). CAREER INTERESTS AND VALUES A. Myers-Briggs Online The Myers Briggs test is a known personality test whose "...customized report will assist you with career planning, goal setting, making decisions, time management, understanding your social interactions and much more!" The link above is one that offers the test through "Your Life's Path", a career counseling and consulting firm. Please note that the test is available at several online locations including myersbriggs.org B. ASVAB Career Exploration As described on the site, "THE ASVAB CAREER EXPLORATION PROGRAM is a career planning and exploration program that combines a multiple-aptitude test with an interest self-assessment and a wide range of career exploration tools. And it's FREE to participating schools!" CAREER LOCATION EXAMPLE - Angola University (Animation, DJ'ing, Realtor, Achitecture). Opportunites are further described in a separate section of the lesson titled "Angola University" SUGGESTED INTERVEW QUESTIONS Some good lists can be found online on the Kent School District site, at Aspire Oregon's PDF list, and the American University in Cairo webpage. Examples each site offers for questions are: 1. What is the typical entry-level position(s) for this job? 2. How important is it to have the "right" degree or courses to have a chance to develop a career like yours today? 3. What are other qualifications that you as an employer/employee consider important? 4. Does your organization offer summer or part-time employment (or volunteer opportunities) for students who are looking for related experience? 5. Can you suggest other work/volunteer experiences that would be advantageous to have? 6. What is a typical day like for you? 7. What do you see as the pros and cons of this type of work? 8. What are the qualifications and educational requirements for this type of work? REPORT REQUIREMENTS (PRESENTED BY STUDENT(S)) In the presentation to the class before writing the reflection piece, students are to present the following information: I. Experiences on Second Life II. Ultimate career goals III. How to obtain goals IV. Education necessary for career option(s) V. Income possibilties VI. Pros/Cons of career observed DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Refer back to step 8 'to discuss' under the LESSON STEPS category of the lesson plan for teacher-driven discussion questions followed by the following questions below--of which the first is from one posed by Devers in his chapter 5 dissertation discussion "Students perspectives and learning from a cross-cultural online course: the influence of a critial pedagogical approach", and a few others to take the discussion a step further... (1)  What did I (the student) learn in a cross-cultural online environment such as Second Life. (2) What did I (the student) learn about my chances of career success/opportunity in an online environment? (3) Did my career choices or interests vary when training or exposed to options in the online environment? Did it help be to think 'outside the box' in respect to career possibilities? (4) Did the exercise widden my understanding of the career? OTHER The teacher may offer a evaluation for students to fill out about the process. The evaluation can either be teacher created or use Survey Monkey.
 * }

{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: AQUA; border: 2px solid black; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Angola University
What's available career exploration-wise... DJ'ing Animation Architecture Real Estate Agent ...FROM THE SECOND LIFE NOTECARD ON ANGOLA UNIVERSITY... Classes at the Angola Virtual Learning Center are free all classes on in-world subjects will continue to be free, and language classes are free first 4 weeks. AVLC is here for those in sl who are new, and want to learn to navigate sl, learn building basics, and language learning. Also, starting test preparation courses soon.

If you are interested in taking classes @ AVLC, Please leave an IM or notecard with Nzingha Dreddmor.

AVLC is very newbie friendly!!

Coordinates: Pooch Deezul, Gream (210, 163, 1501) For other awesome lesson plan ideas, click here! {| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * }
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: #FFFF66; border: 2px solid black; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Reflection
(I) Explain what you believe was the purpose of the project and answer in detail: How have you and your classmates' personal views about the future, about life, your values, interests, goals, and about success (in any environment) changed throughout the course of the Virtual Project? (II) How does what you learned in school connect with your career choice? {| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * }
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: AQUA; border: 2px solid black; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Alternative(s)
(1) Teacher may pick a set of careers for the entire class and supposing the class picks five careers, divide the class into five groups but students are still expected to complete the research and training independently.

(2) School may chose to purchase land and create its own settings rather than to use what is already there, and then use the space to post student findings, experiences, and reports in the Second Life land location for public availability.

(3) Accumulate written student presentations to post online on a secure site such as wikiversity as a record over the years of career choice information which may be used for a school organized career fair or virtual fair.

{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width: 90%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * }
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: #FFFF66; border: 2px solid black; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

Other
ARTICLES AND/OR SITES THAT SUPPORTING JOB SHADOWING: (1) "Research Companies and Careers Through Job Shadowing". It's an online article discussing the benefits and steps of job shadowing. (2) Project Shadow by Grossmont. It describes steps to consider when job shadowing. (3) Job Shadow, a free online resource. "Job Shadow is an academically motivating activity designed to give kids the unique opportunity of an up-close look at the world of work and provide the answer to the commonly asked question, “Why do I have to learn this?”."

 * }

Other Lesson Plans


text:
User:Druseltal2005

see wikipedia

title: User:Druseltal2005


text: Template:Cmbox

title: Template:Cmbox


text:
Template:Notice/doc

This is the notice message box.

When used in articles, this message box should only be used for important comments about the article that cannot be shown using a more specific template. Less important comments should as usual be put as text on the article's talk page instead.

This message box can also be used on other pages, such as on the top of talk or project pages. There it can be used in a more relaxed way.

This box automatically changes style depending on what kind of page it is shown on. That is, it uses the standardised message box styles for the different types of pages.

Articles
This is how this box looks on article (main space) pages. Here is a code example:

Which renders like this:

An optional header text can be added. Like this:

Which renders like this:

The message box can also take an image parameter, but that is discouraged when the box is used in articles. See example further down for how to use that parameter.

Talk pages
This is how this box looks on any talk page. That is, pages that start with "Talk:", "User talk:", "Image talk:" and so on. Here's the basic box again:

Which renders like this:

The header parameter works on talk pages too. But there is one parameter that only works on talk pages, the small parameter. Like this:

As you can see, "small=yes" causes a smaller right floating box with a smaller image and smaller text size. Let's try the image parameter too. Like this:

File and category pages
This is how this box looks on image pages:

This is how this box looks on category pages:

Other pages
This is how this box looks on most other pages, such as pages that start with "User:", "Wikipedia:", "Help:" and so on.

Which renders like this:

The box can also take an image parameter. Like this:

Which renders like this:

The header and image parameters can of course be used at the same time.

title: Template:Notice/doc


text: Template:Template other

title: Template:Template other


text: Template:!-

title: Template:!-


text:
Template:!-/doc

This is an auxiliary template that allows one to encode the wiki table delimiter " " within template parameters and parser functions. If it is not a template parameter or a parser function, just use " ".

It is advisable to use |- instead of |-.

This template cannot be substituted.

title: Template:!-/doc


text:
User talk:Supersarah1999

 Hello Supersarah1999, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Supersarah1999


text:
User talk:MD Kearns

 Hello MD Kearns, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:MD Kearns


text:
User talk:BroWine1943

 Hello BroWine1943, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:BroWine1943


text:
Wikiversity talk:Vandalism

documenting vandalism
Is there any evidence that documenting vandalism encourages it, or is this just speculation? Tisane 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that is a question that doesn't have a simple answer. I think there is no evidence that documenting vandalism will in itself encourage vandalism. People are encouraged and motived by various things. If is person's motivation in vandalism is driven by a desire for attention not giving it to them might discourage them from vandalizing further, or because there desire for attention was not satisfied they might attempt to do something more drastic to satisfy their need for attention. In some situations a person may do something because you asked them not to, even if it is contrary to how they would normally act, which is where WP:BEANS and avoiding telling people what not to do comes into play. I think psychology might provide some ideas as to how people may react/respond to various situations in order to satisfy needs, wants, or desires. I think psychology might also provide some solutions that sometimes work, like focus on what to do (instead of what not to do), and find an alternative outlet that allows a person's needs, wants, and desires to be satisfied in a way that is acceptable by the community. Like instead of blocking people that vandalize, the community could compliment the person on there creative energy, give them a hug, thank them for there work, encourage them, and provide some focus and direction in life by taking the person under its wing as a pupil. For my lack of not being able to find some specific learning resources to point to, what Big Brothers Big Sisters does might come close to what I'm thinking of in terms of alternatives to shunning a person for there actions that psychology has usually found to work better. The proverb "It takes a village to raise a child" also comes to mind. -- dark lama  21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * If documenting vandalism serves a useful purpose, certainly it can be done, but if it, instead, leads to conflict and disruption, it's probably a bad idea. Vandals vandalize for various reasons, and with some of them, the vandal will outgrow it, and with others, not; sometimes vandalism takes place because a person has been abused and is retaliating. There is no benefit in becoming upset over vandalism, we should simply deal with it in the most effective way. For obvious vandalism, no vandal is going to be surprised and, for that matter, offended, by being blocked, it's expected, so the WP practice of warning before blocking may be overkill. However, the use of the term "vandalism" for what may be a good-faith effort to improve, or good-faith efforts to discuss, should be avoided, just as the term "spam" should never be used for good-faith efforts to add links that may be believed to be useful by the editor, unless the level of addition becomes massive. People who fight vandalism and spam become, as it were, warriors, and often think of themselves that way, see the battleship image on w:WP:WikiProject Spam, which page actually argues, without caution, against w:WP:AGF policy. Warriors can go berserk and can destroy much beyond the natural protective function of defense. I've seen seriously tragic cases on Wikipedia.

 * Vandalism should be dealt with firmly and gently. A short block is actually quite gentle if not accompanied by abuse. --Abd 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism definition
It has been suggested that this become a policy. I would support any work to further that. I'm not sure we are yet in a position to consider making this policy and I think it would be better to discuss this here rather than elsewhere.

One of the key motivations behind the recent suggestion seems to be disagreements with how vandalism and other similar behaviour is actually defined. As this proposed policy stands, I'm not clear how making policy would deal with that issue. It doesn't seem to actually try to define vandalism beyond the statement that "Vandalism is an inherently disruptive or destructive behavior". That would seem to leave it potentially very broad. Regardless of the current definition though, my position is that any edits by an individual that is blocked should be dealt with as vandalism since I consider is disruptive. If the community wished for an individual to edit despite other concerns they could deal with it by topic bans or similar measures rather than blocks. Therefore any edit which evades the block shows a lack of respect of the communities wish that an individual shouldn't participate and should be dealt with firmly in my view. Adambro 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The proposed vandalism policy should be made official as soon as possible. It would resolve the conflict that is under community review by compelling Custodians to comply with this: "Wikiversity works when people are bold and assume others are acting in good faith. If you believe a page has been vandalized, take a moment to consider whether the material may have been added in good faith. If you believe material was not added in good faith, you can undo the changes."Wikiversity also needs a Blocking policy. --JWSchmidt 13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

JWS' comment ignores the fact that edits by a blocked editor are a form of vandalism, and it is entirely possible that "positive content" may be contributed "in bad faith," and I've seen it. The basic presumption is that blocked editors do not properly edit, period, and for a blocked editor to make an edit that is readily identifiable as having been made by that editor is a form of defiance, unless certain conditions are met which show cooperation instead of defiance; I've proposed self-reversion as a way for a blocked editor, editing as IP, or a topic banned editor, editing on the topic under ban, to make positive contributions without complicating ban or block enforcement.

Aside from something like that, the policy should state that edits that are in defiance of a block may be treated as vandalism, it is not necessary to call them vandalism in themselves. Adambro is correct. Disrespect for the rights of the community as shown by block-defying edits is a disruptive behavior, even if the edits themselves are "good faith contributions," not considering the block. The fact is that we must consider the block, and I was involved when this was demonstrated on Wikipedia by an editor who was literally trying to trap an administrator into enforcing an ArbComm topic ban for "harmless edits." The necessity of judging each edit to see if it was actually harmless or not vastly complicated ban enforcement, which should be simple, the whole point of blocking or banning is to simplify process of dealing with an editor considered disruptive. Otherwise, blocks would seem to be completely unnecessary! Just revert the contributions, if we've examined them and consider them disruptive! And leave them if not! And thus a skillful troll can waste vast amounts of user and custodian labor. --Abd 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Above, Abd wrote, "JWS' comment ignores the fact that edits by a blocked editor are a form of vandalism" <-- Abd, this is false. Good faith edits are not vandalism. Abd, your proposal to treat good faith edits as vandalism must be rejected as a misguided effort that seeks institutionalize alienation of valuable Wikiversity community members. Such barbaric practices have no place at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that even certain clear distinctions seem lost on JWS. "A form of vandalism" is a comment that suggests that there are different forms of vandalism. JWS places "good faith edits" in a category that excludes vandalism. But, in fact, "vandalism" can be a broader category than he thinks. It can include "good faith" writing. For example, I might write on an empty billboard, "Republicans xxxx." Good faith comment, perhaps. But "vandalism" because of where and how it was written. Same message, if I paid for it, or got permission from the billboard owner, i.e., I was legally allowed to write that, not vandalism. All edits by blocked editors are, on the face, block evasion, and it can be claimed that, as a class, they damage the project, this is the point that Adambro was making. Specific edits might not cause damage if left alone, but I'll point out that if we had the resources to examine each edit by a blocked editor to determine if it is "good faith" or not, we would not need to block at all. We'd just review all edits and revert the bad ones. In theory, we block only when we have come to the conclusion that the review process for an editor has become more of a burden than a benefit. So block-evading edits are a kind of "vandalism," because they cause damage, and that is the basic definition of vandalism, damage.
 * JWS is following a kind of approach that seeks to define substance from semantic associations. I.e., "vandalism" is "bad," and therefore something good cannot be "vandalism." It's a semantic error. It's very simple to deal with the edits of a blocked editor. First of all, if nobody objects to them, there is nothing to do. Block policy doesn't require that the edits of a blocked editor must be reverted, nor does it -- nor should it -- call them "vandalism" except in one very narrow way, in practice: rollback may be used, which is normally reserved for "vandalism." Perhaps defined as "obvious damage." Rollback may be used because it is efficient and because it is not necessary to establish specific cause, in the edit content itself, to revert block-evading edits. In fact, it's a good thing that an admin, especially, doesn't do this, because then the admin gets wrapped up, perhaps, in using admin tools based on opinions about content other than clear vandalism.
 * So any editor -- this isn't an admin thing in itself -- may revert the edits of a blocked editor, regardless of content. And what happens next does indeed depend on the content, and on how that content is considered by non-blocked editors. JWS complains about the reverting, but I started reviewing all the edits of a certain blocked editor, one where JWS has for two years complained about the block and about the reverts. And so I started restoring the ones which were not objectionable, which had possibly some benefit to the community. I found that almost all the edits were good edits, in my judgment. But a few, a small number, were not. The problems were great enough that I wasn't ready to propose unblock, unless the user makes some agreements. He claims to not want to be unblocked, so, at this time, I don't see that happening. But the situation could change. Meanwhile, if JWS actually thinks that the edits are good, why doesn't he participate in reviewing and restoring them? Taking responsibility, as I did, for what he restores?
 * (I also started taking on original reversion. I.e., when I saw an edit by this editor, I'd immediately revert. I logged the edit on my Talk page, and immediately or later stated, usually, an intention to restore or whatever. Then, after normally allowing some time for objection, I restored most of them. I took on original reversion to relieve the admins of the task, and possibly to lower the use of range blocks, where edits were actually harmless. Range blocks cause harm. Even IP blocking of a blocked editor can sometimes do more harm than good. There is disagreement on this point, but I believe the community can and will come to consensus on it. We can develop a saner policy on how to deal with edits by blocked editors, one which encourages good contributions and discourages disruptive ones, and, elsewhere, I've seen this lead to healing of wounds within a wiki community, where editors who had been at loggerheads ended up cooperating.)
 * If these edits were anything other than "status vandalism," it would be offensive for me to restore them. I've been threatened with blocking for restoring them, occasionally, but without any specific basis, so I doubt it will happen. It's just the general idea that I'm "proxying for a blocked user," which is preposterous. (It's a gross misuse of the term "proxying," which would refer to actually making edits at the direction of another editor, as their "agent" or "proxy.") I'm functioning openly as an editor in good standing, reviewing reverted content to see if it should be restored. Any editor can do that, and if what I do is offensive, any editor may revert me. In something like two cases, my restorations were reverted. I do not revert war, period. I did, however, in one or two of these situations, place a note pointing to history. We do not censor, but we do take care what is visible in current pages. None of these have been removed. I no case, however, was the claim made that the edits themselves were disruptive in their content, as I recall. It was simply that they had been made originally by a blocked user, which, to me, showed a clear misunderstanding of block policy and its implications. (And sometimes I'd added notes pointing out that the comment was by a blocked user; these notes, contrary to certain traditions, were also removed in a simple revert.)
 * Making fuss over useless stuff, as JWS has done, avoids considering some of the real problems. For example, I've seen, here and elsewhere, block-evading edits that clearly were not "vandalism," but which were reverted using a manual edit summary that called them such; likewise blocks and range blocks issued as a response to edits by a blocked editor, harmless at worst, have referred to "multiple vandalism" as a cause. There was no need for that, it is offensive and inflammatory, and it simply serves to reinforce the impression that a blocked editor is being treated unfairly, which then perpetuates disputes.
 * We have a lot of work to do to write and negotiate consensus on policies that are effective, efficient, and fair. Maintaining constant complaint against certain users and sysops postpones the day that we can fix all this. Let's get to work! JWS, long ago I invited you to reapply for custodianship. That may not be practical, but are you interesting in helping make all this work? You might have to revise some of your ideas and habits! Are you ready for that? I hope so, but it's up to you.
 * Meanwhile, if you have specific complaints about specific issues, there are ways to pursue them. Ask me and I'll help. You don't just load a shotgun with all the junk you can find and pull the trigger. It just makes a mess. --Abd 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits by blocked editors
'Edits by blocked editors may be routinely treated as vandalism, without consideration of the value of the content, because addition of content when due process considers the edit illegitimate is disruptive. This, however, does not impeach the content itself, which may be reverted back in by any editor who takes responsibility for it, and such edits should not be called "vandalism," in themselves, because there may indeed be a good faith effort by the blocked editor to do something useful with the edit. Rollback may be used to revert such edits by any administrator, which is where "considering the edit as vandalism" becomes relevant. Otherwise such edits, if they are to be described at all, are simply "block evasion." Block evasion, however, would not justify a block of the editor or editor's IP for "vandalism." The block reason, if a custodian decides to block, would be "block evasion."' The above is proposed as a section of the policy under this title. --Abd 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not too comfortable with this self-reversion concept. One of the problems is exactly what User:Thekohser did with Field and tab where he evaded the block using one sockpuppet, added content, then, with another sockpuppet removed that content and claimed it was violating the copyright of Thekohser. If users are evading a block that will often involve use of a variety of IPs and perhaps an alternative account. That increases the difficulty by which edits can be associated with one individual making it more difficult to deal with copyright issues as in this example but I'm sure there are other issues this presents. Another major problem is that users aren't blocked for simply producing useful learning resources. There is always going to be some other issue with their behaviour. Therefore, I'm not convinced as to what value in assessing the appropriateness of unblocking someone may be gained from this self-reversion concept. If anyone chooses to comply with it, they are likely to be making more uncontroversial edits with a view to trying to get themselves unblocked as opposed to actually demonstrating by dealing with more sensitive issues that they have actually changed their behaviour. I'd also be concerned about the potential for the block to be undermined by other users deciding to reinstate content which the blocked user has added and then reverted. Like I've said, it is not a concept I'm really immediately comfortable with but I'll give it more thought. Perhaps if others favoured this we could consider limiting it to the main namespace or similar. I don't think blocked users should be getting involved in, for example, policy discussions by proxy. Adambro 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen self-reversion work, Adambro, to heal divisions on Wikipedia. It's obvious that someone could try to game it. However, please read the text I suggested more carefully. I did not describe self-reversion, the policy text as I proposed did not at all mention or legitimate self-reversion. That's a separate question, please don't confuse the two issues. Self-reversion would be described under block policy, it really has nothing to do with "vandalism." I'll note, however, that "self-reverted vandalism" routinely isn't considered vandalism, even if blatant, if the edit is quickly reverted. Someone who tried to game this would quickly be blocked anyway. I did not review the edits described above of Thekohser, I'm not sure if I'd understand that sequence, but if it is important, it could be described and reviewed. It didn't involve self-reversion, which would ordinarily be a reversion of the edit by the same account or IP within the same session. Self-reversion as I've described it involves an edit that is, from the beginning, intended to be self-reverted, that declares the self-reversion intention and gives the reason for it in the edit summary, "I.e., in the case of Thekohser, it would say "will self-revert per block of Thekohser," thus admitting that the IP -- or even possibly a sock -- is Thekohser, and it's up to the blocked editor to ensure that self-reversion is prompt, for frequently failure to self-revert would, indeed, complicate block enforcement and thus the "exemption" would be lost. Self-reversion creates practically no block enforcement labor, if self-reverted edits aren't considered ban violations as such -- but only if they are truly disruptive, and disruptive editors don't self-revert, indeed, from what I've seen, they rather violently reject the idea of self-reversion as some kind of kowtowing to the sysops. Please consider, Adambro, how much easier it would have been to deal with Moulton if he'd been making those IP edits recently, signing them, and self-reverting, with means for him to suggest and allow other editors to "second his motions," if they want to take responsibility for them. If nobody ever does that, he'd not continue this. But some of what Moulton writes is probably useful. Problem is filtering that. It's too much work for custodians to do, so when a user is blocked, we just revert automatically. And that is the thrust of the language proposed here, to make it clear that this is legitimate, and that it is not an accusation that the edits are "vandalism" except in the most technical sense. --Abd 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The important issue here is: what supports the Wikiversity mission? Wikiversity welcomes all good faith edits. It damages Wikiversity when constructive edits are treated like vandalism. Each edit must be evaluated on its own merits. "when due process considers the edit illegitimate is disruptive" <-- In the case under community review, Moulton was subjected to an out-of-process block that was performed against Wikiversity community consensus. Moulton never got due process since he was subjected to a bad block. I'm not convinsed that there has been a single legitimate block imposed on Wikiversity community members, and this problem is under community review. The problem with the blocks is that they have been made in violation of Wikiversity policy. It is a serious violation of policy to call for unjustified blocks. The Wikiversity community standard is that blocks are used as a vandalism-fighting tool. Any other use of the block tool must be made by community consensus and only after following due process to show justification for the block. Wikiversity is a community of collaborating scholars not an abusive MMORPG where sysops with toy banhammers invent unjustified excuses to eliminate scholarly Wikiversity community members. The abusive practice of imposing unjustified blocks was imposed on Wikiversity by misguided Wikipedians acting against Wikiversity community consensus. Even if someday there is a legitimate reason for a block of a Wikiversity community member, care must be taken not to alienate the community member. Unwisely treating good faith contributions to the project as if they were vandalism alienates a blocked community member and is viewed as an outrageous disruption of the Wikiversity mission by other community members. The proposed policy change is a barbaric and misguided effort and the fact that two sysops are pushing this idea does great discredit to the Wikiversity project. This proposal is as destructive as having prison inmates perform a useful task like manufacturing license plates and then shipping them all to the dump. Absurd. Can Wikiversity sink any lower? Abd and Adambro, I ask you to think about what you are doing here in this collaborative learning community and please stop this appalling effort to alter policy so as to facilitate horrific practices. Wikiversity cannot afford an effort to pervert this scholarly learning community with a misguided attempt to treat good faith edits like vandalism. What a shameful effort. Is there a single remaining Wikiversity sysop who can be trusted to decide what constitutes vandalism? If functionaries in any authentic educational institution proposed a way to alienate the resident scholars, those functionaries would be quickly terminated from their positions of trust. Why does Wikiversity tolerate such disruption of our community? Shameful. Sickening. --JWSchmidt 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. This is a truly sickening proposal that would disrupt the Wikiversity mission. This is a matter under community review. All Custodians who have been falsifying logs or violated policy by using the rollback tool to revert edits that are not obvious vandalism should recuse themselves from efforts to change the policy by inventing and applying an absurd definition of vandalism. Good faith edits by Wikiversity community members are not vandalism.
 * Sad it is, JWS, that you are utterly unable to understand the proposal, because it specifically does not call "good faith edits" "vandalism." Please read what the proposal actually says and respond to that, not to your imagination. From your misunderstanding, you then descend into a pit of assumptions of bad faith and imprecations and denunciations, which is more or less what you have been doing for two years. By the way, how many users have I banned with my "banhammer"? Funny, I've looked in the toolbox and it isn't there. --Abd 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, are you insinuating that I said "The proposed policy calls good faith edits vandalism"? I wrote, "Wikiversity cannot afford an effort to pervert this scholarly learning community with a misguided attempt to treat good faith edits like vandalism." Is that not your intention? How else am I to interpret the proposed wording, "Edits by blocked editors may be routinely treated as vandalism, without consideration of the value of the content"? "assumptions of bad faith" <-- Abd, list the assumptions I made. "imprecations"? <-- I admit that this disruptive proposal makes me physically ill. "denunciations" <-- Above, I've explained the harm that would be done by the proposed misguided treatment of good faith edits as if they were vandalism. The proposal needs to be denounced. It is shameful that anyone would try to impose a system for alienating community members and reverting good faith edits on a scholarly learning community. --JWSchmidt 04:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Youse guise are gonna tie yourselves in knots trying to develop a coherent set of policies and practices in which binding, gagging, and locking a fellow scholar in the janitorial hall closet is your primary tool of bondage and discipline. It's ridiculous on the face of it. —Barsoom Tork 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * We are? Why, Barsoom, would you want this, why would you think that a "coherent set of policies" would necessarily have such as a "primary tool"? You like being tied in knots? And is it only scholars that we get to bind, gag, and lock into the janitorial hall closet, and, by the way, do you know where the keys are to that closet? I thought, as a custodian, I could only conduct some disruptive participant, scholar or not, to the door, or alternatively open the door to admit him or her, I could not confine anyone to any space at all, except for the great negative space, i.e., Outside. Outside what? The sole location of wisdom, enlightenment, learning, education, bliss, and lockable closets? Barsoom, your comment reeks of total disconnect with the present reality, it seems to me you are lost in some kind of time warp, where, perhaps, you imagined this kind of bondage and "discipline."
 * It's about time that we have this discussion. And it is relevant here. Are the contributions of Barsoom "vandalism," such that they can be reverted on sight, whether or not they have value? If Barsoom/Moulton is blocked, my position is that, while they may or may not be literal and texturally vandalism, they may be treated as such, because the meaning of a message includes the context. But he's not blocked, at least not last I looked. Would this contribution justify a block for "vandalism'? It's contentious, but it's not specifically uncivil, it is only generally disrespectful, say, of the custodial corps here. If he were "attacking" an ordinary user, with similar intensity, I'd warn/block him in a flash. But he's not. If any custodian thinks his contributions are sufficiently disruptive, the due process would be to warn/block him, which is then an action that another admin can reverse. Given the history, warning would not be necessary, but still might be a great idea, and even though he'd likely make lots of noise about coercion, and I'm suggesting that, when conflict with a user reaches the levels we've seen, with plenty of collateral damage, it should take two admins to block, really, one to warn and one to actually block, having seen a disregard of the warning and concurring that the behavior is blockable.
 * Bottom line, the edit above is not vandalism. It's a negative view of the body of custodians, and we must allow that view to exist; for if we censor it or exclude it, we become the image of what we are attempting to deny, thus justifying an intensification of the "attack." This is why I'm taking such pains to approach this matter step-by-step, even at the cost of some level of continuing disruption. --Abd 20:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "why would you think that a "coherent set of policies" would necessarily have such as a "primary tool"?" <-- Imagine any objective observer like Barsoom Tork who looked at blocks made against community consensus, unjustified calls for blocks and bans and the sickening proposal for alienating Wikiversity community members made on this page. The disruptive policy proposal on this page certainly looks like an attempt to start creating "policies and practices in which binding, gagging, and locking a fellow scholar in the janitorial hall closet" is a preferred method. Is there any Custodian who can feel shame? --JWSchmidt 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
This policy is the subject of Community Review. --JWSchmidt 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert of change by Ottava Rima
Ottava Rima reverted the previously proposed change, with the summary, (No consensus). That is not an argument against a change to a proposed policy. It would hold if there was consensus against, which there was not. There was not, in fact, adequate discussion, a common problem. I have reverted it back, because I have presented arguments for the change as it is, that have not been controverted in any way that will find consensus. Please, if you are going to revert a change to the proposed policy, discuss it here and give specific reasons, in detail. What was wrong with it? "No consensus" isn't a statement of anything wrong. The page will not become policy until it has consensus, so Obviously, we don't have consensus on the page as it is, or on how it, as a policy, would be applied. Before we solicit community review of the policy, to "ratify" it, we should attempt to find broad consensus, and the normal wiki way to do this is through collaborative editing of the page. Pure blocking of the process of development could be seen as attempting to prevent us from having clear policy on this topic. --Abd 03:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS stated above that Abd's proposed change was "a truly sickening proposal". There was no support and quite a lot of opposition from different sides. Abd's insistence of adding it to multiple pages and the rest is part of a wider history of disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What JWS proposed as being "sickening" was precisely what Ottava Rima and Adambro have been doing, that is, calling good faith edits from blocked editors "vandalism." What I did was to clarify that such edits are "like vandalism" in that the call for work handle them, and the community has -- or some process has -- decided that, at least for the moment, the editor is likely to be more disruptive than not. One of the implications of a block is as described here and in the proposals for Blocking policy, just made. Now, Ottava has claimed "no support and quite a lot of opposition from different sides." Here is my analysis:
 * Abd proposed.
 * Adambro expressed "discomfort" about "self-reversion." This proposed change was not about self-reversion, so Adambro was confused, thinking about a different proposal made at Blocking policy. He expressed no opposition to the content of this change.
 * JWSchmidt was "sickened." However, what sickens him is standard practice. The change made yesterday emphasized that what might be "good faith edits" should not be called "vandalism," which is really his position. But it also stated that it was acceptable to use rollback for such edits, precisely because the content is not considered. JWS's opposition was rooted in a view that is far from consensus, though I did consider his views in writing the policy, attempting to cover what I've seen is all too common: the casual use of "vandalism" to refer to good faith editing by a blocked user.
 * Moulton commented as Barsoom Tork. Shall we include him? He is opposed to the routine reversion of edits by blocked editors, I know from other communication with him -- he was quite angry with me for doing it, to support block enforcement -- but, again, his position is contrary to policy and consensus. He's still not -- usually -- a vandal.
 * I don't see that anyone else participated, but Ottava has claimed that "there was no support and quite a lot of opposition," yet I see, from editors in good standing, one support, one neutral comment really about something else, and one opposition obviously based on a difference with standing consensus.
 * The edit described actual practice. So, I'm fascinated. What, specifically, was wrong with it? How about fixing it instead of just removing it, or is it totally wrong? If it's totally wrong, I'm going to need to ask the community about this, because it also would imply that we have two custodians who have now posted to this page who are violating policy, by using rollback, if my description was wrong. I don't think it was wrong. I think Ottava was so confused that he didn't know what he was reverting. I think he seized on JWS's strong language above as an excuse to avoid dealing with the actual content, and instead giving himself a justification to block me, which he did, based on my one restoring revert. He reverted twice, with no apparent review of the content. 'Nuff said about that here, it will be covered elsewhere, per policy. --Abd 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Well the above analysis leaves out myself. I also oppose the self-reversion idea, as commented elsewhere. Thenub314 02:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, what does "self-reversion" have to do with the issue here? This is your first time commenting on this page and this issue. what are you talking about being "left out"? There has been nothing to include! There is no mention of self-reversion in the proposed addition to the proposed policy page. Would you please comment on the actual proposal, Edits by blocked editors, instead of something else not relevant here?

 * I was commenting on this passage: "Edits by blocked editors may be routinely treated similarly to vandalism [aka reverted]... This, however, does not impeach the content itself, which may be reverted back in by any editor who takes responsibility for it..." Sorry to be unclear, I should not have said self reversion. But it strikes me as to be the same vein as the idea of self reversion. Thenub314 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it is. Rather, it is part of a chain of logic that could lead to policy about self-revision. However, obviously, it's not about self-reversion, but about reversion itself.

 * I make an edit.
 * You revert, giving a reason.
 * I revert you, with or without a reason, restoring my own edit.

 * This is revert warring (strictly speaking, the third edit described is where the boundary into revert warring has been crossed. My restoration edit may or may not be legitimate. Wikipedia decided to set a "bright line" at three reverts per page per day, and, with few exceptions, you can be blocked on Wikipedia for making more than three reverts in one day, on the same page. It's still badly defined and gets wikilawyered to death, on both directions, and is preferentially applied to sides of disputes that are favored by admins, but at least it's clear, and I've seen many supposedly experienced editors get blocked, to their wonder, because they believed that they were enforcing policy. And they were! But they violated 3RR policy doing it!

 * same as above, but you didn't give a reason. Any difference?

 * No, except that my "revert warring" becomes more legitimate. I rarely blind revert without discussion. (A "blind revert" means a revert of an entire edit without any move toward compromise or consensus, and it especially refers to reverting, in toto, an edit that makes more than one change. If this is done without discussion, it is especially "blind." It makes no progress toward consensus. Properly, if someone is going to make a blind revert, or bald revert, it's sometimes called, they should really make it with a summary, "See Talk," and then open up discussion on it, or explain the revert in existing discussion.

 * Same situation, but the third step is different.
 * Another editor reverts you, not me.

 * This is almost never considered revert warring, unless this is part of a series of such edits. The action of a third editor is a judgment de novo of the edit. It is not a tug-of-war, it is expanding participation.

 * Now, to the point here. It's being said that edits by blocked editors may be "treated like" vandalism, not that they are vandalism. It is possible to define vandalism to include "status offenses." But that definition, in use, causes unnecessary disruption, because it uses a term widely accepted as seriously perjorative, and applies it to edits which may be positive changes.

 * Blocked editor reverts actual vandalism.
 * Block enforcement editor routinely reverts edit of blocked editor.

 * What happens? It depends on who is watching. But this much is very clear: any editor may reverse that revert, taking responsibility for the edit by the blocked editor being a good edit.

 * Okay, this was a clear case in one direction, one where the right to restore the edit is obvious.

 * Blocked editor makes a spelling correction. Any difference?

 * No.

 * Blocked editor !votes in a poll.
 * Routinely reverted as an edit by a blocked editor.
 * Third editor (or the second self-reverting!) restores vote, but indents, de-bolds, uses strikeout, adds a note, or even simply places note to history, that there was a !vote by a blocked editor.

 * Is this a violation of policy? No. It's routine, in fact.

 * Blocked editor makes a disruptive edit.
 * Routinely reverted as edit of a blocked editor.
 * I restore it.

 * I have now restored a disruptive edit, and I can be warned, and if I continue this behavior, can be blocked myself.

 * Blocked editor makes a disruptive edit.
 * Reverted with an edit summary that claims it is disruptive.
 * I restore it without discussion.

 * Whether I'm warned or blocked immediately would depend on the seriousness of the disruptiveness and my history.

 * In this last case, a content judgment was made. So I'm, in a way, revert warring with the first reverter, "tag-teaming" with the blocked editor.

 * Basic principle: reverts made without consideration of the content, but based on some other issue, are not content decisions, so reversion of them based on content starts content review process. That process did not start with the status revert. "Revert warring" refers to a symptom of content review pathology, where editors each insist on their position without negotiating consensus.

 * Is this becoming clear? The proposed policy language expresses what is routinely accepted. Absolutely, there are some who don't accept it, but they've never been able to obtain consensus, even on Wikipedia, which has strict content policies and thus far more need to require resorting to more formal dispute resolution process, more frequently. The principle is very clear, there: content is not censored according to origin. But it gets violated, and editors have been blocked and even banned based on "asserting a point of view that had been asserted by a banned editor." It's a pathology there, resulting from what happens when factions of administrators form. Whenever that argument reached ArbComm, as far as I've seen, it's been shot down. It is an obvious violation of fundamental neutrality policy.

 * Here on Wikiversity, the principles of academic freedom are very important. Academic freedom includes the ability to express, within behavioral guidelines, unpopular views. Hence we saw great disruption here when, in 2008 and in March of this year, editors were banned by fiat from Jimbo, it created a conflict between academic freedom and the exclusion of "disruptive editors." (I am not claiming that Jimbo was "wrong" to block, that is a separate issue.) This community has since reviewed both situations, maintaining (with trouble) one of the blocks, and overturning the other.

 * The principle I enunciated actually could be used on Wikipedia, WP policy language that I've pointed to there is similar (see the discussion at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy. Reading that, you can see the tension in the community. It's been kept vague, because no clear consensus has formed. Vague policy, avoiding conflict in creating the policy, spreads the conflict out, as editors "experiment" with the edges. Wikipedia became too large and too dominated by factions within what Jimbo called the "administrative cabal," to be able to efficiently come to consensus about policy, where the cabal and/or the community are divided, thus WP easily becomes a battleground.

 * I see part of the function of Wikiversity as being able to address wiki structure from a cooler, more academic perspective, truly neutral, aiming toward understanding, possibly generating advice for other wikis as to how they can improve their own process. Academics at universities study the writings of people who are considered rejected or disruptive by society as a whole. They study social process and how it works and doesn't work. The difficulties here, in 2008 and this year, were rooted in the lack of structure here, to contain and channel this study, such that it became disruptive itself. That can be avoided.

 * Thus an important issue here is how to use material coming from a blocked editor. And that's what I've been experimenting with, within the bounds of policy. Because some object to this, I'm trying to make policy more clear. To leave it vague is to leave in place an unsatisfactory situation: two groups of editors who believe that their contradictory views are the "intent of policy."

 * There is a view that policy should be purely descriptive, i.e., should simply document actual practice. In actual practice, though, policy is written with normative values in mind. My resolution of this tension is that policy should be both normative and descriptive, and when practice deviates from policy as written, both should be reviewed in maintaining the policy pages. Sometimes actual practice violates established norms, and working on policy language and expression is an approach to finding community consensus to resolve this. Sometimes wider comment will be needed, because policy pages tend to be watched only by the most involved factions of editors, who may have biases that are different from those of the general community.

 * Now, Thenub, can you see why what should be some simple editing of policy pages -- as has been going on for years -- could become so contentious? We will resolve the disputes and contention, but it starts with paying attention to details, and meticulously considering each issue, and building consensus, one piece at a time. Thanks for showing up and participating.

 * May an editor, by taking personal responsibility for the content, restore a status-reverted edit from a blocked editor? This does not protect the editor from consequences for making that restoration, if it was truly disruptive. It simply means that the editor is protected from sanctions simply on the basis of a restoral itself, without consideration of whether or not the content is disruptive. --Abd 15:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Better Vandalism Warn Templates
I have noticed that the only actual "warn" templates seem to be for test edits, when a smiliar system works fairly well on wikipedia for vandalism.--ForgottenHistory 05:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Vandalism


text: User:Cirt/Babel

title: User:Cirt/Babel


text: User:Cirt

title: User:Cirt


text:
User talk:Cirt

/Archive 1

 * /Sandbox/

Created new category, Freedom of speech
Created new category, for Freedom of speech. This is in conjunction with crosswiki sister project coordination at Commons:Category:Freedom of speech. Please feel free to help populate it, that'd be most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Freedom of speech

Category community collaboration contributions
Update: Helping out with a bit more category work on the site. Specifically, sorting uncategorized categories related to user-languages, at Special:UncategorizedCategories. Hopefully this is helpful to the community, -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cirt


text:
User talk:Tisane

 Hello Tisane, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Some information
Abd, like you, is brand new to our community. He was granted temporary ops because he stated that he wanted the ability to have rollbacks, which is not a separate option on Wikiversity. He was never intended to be a full op, nor was he supposed to be involving himself in such matters. However, he immediately began pontificating on what was right or wrong, started involving himself with long term matters that he had no background in, and other things that caused a lot of problems. He was admonished multiple times in email and told to stop. He refused to. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So basically, this is about xenophobia toward newbies. How dare they speak their minds! Tisane 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tisane


text:
User:Tisane

...

title: User:Tisane