text:
Wikiversity:Civility/Extension 0.2

Extension to civility policy: mentioning people
Focus on learning resources and the fulfillment of Wikiversity's mission, rather than talking about other people. Focusing on people can create a negative atmosphere, reflect badly on Wikiversity and you, and create the wrong impression, even if this was not your intention. Always focus on what was contributed or done that you liked or didn't like, rather than on people. Criticism of learning resources outside of talk pages and other discussion areas (like Participants) is an inappropriate use of Wikiversity.

You can help maintain civility by removing inappropriate criticisms of people, such as criticisms of a person's character. Pages which serve no other purpose than to criticize a person, rather than their contributions, actions or behavior, can be deleted if approved with a quick discussion at Requests for Deletion. In cases where criticisms of people were made before this extension came into force, efforts should be made to remove these inappropriate criticisms within a reasonable time frame.

Wikilawyering around this provision by making indirect references (like "the editor", "the person" or "he who should not be named") or generalizations (like name calling or labeling people) is not acceptable. This provision should also not be used to justify removing criticisms of learning resources and Wikiversity's mission, which is an appropriate use of Wikiversity, or used to justify or protect against appropriate criticisms of incivility.

title: Wikiversity:Civility/Extension 0.2


text:
Wikiversity:Policies/How Wikiversity makes policy

This page is a discussion page about how Wikiversity did, does and should make policy.

Phase 1
In August 2006, there was a large, rapid failure to agree on almost anything: see the voting on a large range of proposed policies. Mostly the number of votes was small and the outcomes inconclusive. About 3 official policies were voted in and tagged as such by User:Trevor MacInnis at the end of August 2006. The voting procedure was subject to a small boycott by two users who felt the procedure was flawed.

Additionally, further policies came into effect by means of inheritance from the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation leaves most policy matters to local projects, but some policy is determined by the foundation.

Phase 2
At the beginning of 2007, a custodian flagged a number of policies (about 5) as "official" when they had previously been flagged as "proposed" (and at least one of them had actually been rejected quite clearly in a vote). So far as is known, the officialisation of these policies was not notified to the community and consensus was not built.

Phase 3
During 2008, the problems with policy slowly came to light and a policy review was called for.

Summary
There is no established means of creating policy at Wikiversity, and past procedures have been deeply flawed.

Discussion: How should Wikiversity make policy?

 * Personally, I don't know. But my gut instinct is to go for as big a consensus as possible, which on a small project like Wikiversity means using the Colloquium to attract as much attention as possible. As attention spans on Wikiversity are usually pretty short (a few days for something moderately important), one only has a small window of opportunity to attract drafting and voting activity, so unfortunately I think one needs to move fast. And perhaps no more than one policy at a time, because otherwise people will suffer from overload, as they did back in August 2006. --McCormack 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt/Procedure

This page is for discussing procedural matters as regards the review of custodian User:JWSchmidt. Please sign your comments with --~


text:
User:JWSchmidt/Review

Cause for this review
On 6th September 2008, bureaucrat User:SB_Johnny requested a review of the recent behaviour of custodian User:JWSchmidt following a series of bizarre events. There are three major headings under which the behaviour of User:JWSchmidt may have fallen short of that to be expected of a custodian and an editor of Wikiversity, namely: (1) page disruption/edit wars, (2) policy manipulation and (3) damaging the community. The review has taken a longer-term view of behaviour of the user in question than was initially envisaged, particularly because a longer term view will enable a better prediction of the chances of improvement of behaviour in future.

There have already been attempts to resolve the case by more peaceful means, including numerous discussions on IRC and on-wiki between JWS and many of the most conciliatory custodians. User:JWSchmidt has also been quietly asked to resign his custodian/checkuser tools, but has declined. It is felt that lesser options than this review have already been exhausted.

Comments
When you requested a review of three issues I responded. "numerous discussions on IRC and on-wiki" <-- I think it is important to describe these "discussions". Everyone should read them. We can start with Dude! in which you said "I'm not going to try to have a discussion with you". Please explain how such non-discussion-discussions could possibly resolve anything. Is it fair for you to go before the community and claim that "lesser options than this review have already been exhausted" when I've begged you and others repeatedly to tell me what was bothering you and you repeatedly refused tell me? How does your repeated refusal to tell me what was bothering you constitute "attempts to resolve the case"? --JWSchmidt 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this review
The purpose of this review is so that the Wikiversity community can make an informed decision about the behaviour of User:JWSchmidt, and any necessary actions. In discussions which have already stemmed from his initial behaviour, it has become clear that the community is not aware of the full extent of the issues involved, and thus are not aware of the depth and severity of the problem. User:JWSchmidt has also, on a number of occasions in these discussions, claimed that he does not view his behavior as problematic, and he has asked for evidence of any misdeeds. This review is aimed to provide this evidence both to User:JWSchmidt and to the community as a whole.

Without prejudicing the outcome of this review, the community also needs to be informed that User:JWSchmidt currently enjoys the following trusted functions: custodianship, checkuser status (which involves the ability to view private data about community members), mentor status (the ability to help create new custodians), IRC channel operator status (enables greater control of the IRC channel).

Authors of this review
Regardless of who posts this review to Wikiversity, the following custodians and bureaucrats have jointly worked on this review and take collective responsibility for its content:

 * --Mu301 (bureacrat)
 * --SB_Johnny (bureaucrat)
 * --Cormaggio (bureaucrat)
 * --McCormack (custodian)

Procedure
Wikiversity has no policies as regards disciplinary measures in cases of this gravity, because a case of this gravity has not yet occurred. The Wikiversity community is therefore free to agree on its own rules of procedure, within reasonable moral bounds. The community should consider, however, that if Wikiversity does not conduct itself properly, then outside institutions may become involved.

It is felt that as this is the first case of its kind, and as the rules of fair play are in the process of formation, the community should be free to discuss procedural matters. A page for this purpose has been created here: /Procedure.

It is initially proposed that:

 * 1) Evidence is presented.
 * 2) A reasonable period of time is allowed for any parties or other members of the community to discuss the evidence and respond to it. Further evidence may be admitted at this stage.
 * 3) Outcomes and sanctions, if any, are proposed and agreed upon, together with means of enforcement. If possible, a voluntary solution should be sought; a solution should be imposed only as last resort.

Case 01: Albanian sea port history
"User:JWSchmidt’s campaign against any form of deletion at Wikiversity" <-- As pert of my "campaign against any form of deletion" I routinely delete pages.

learning exercise. I urge everyone to look at Requests for Deletion and Deletion requests/Archive/1. Count the number of pages that have been discussed. Count the number of pages for which I have voted "keep". Report the data you collect on this page.

“poisoning the well” <-- I assume the charge is that I created a biased learning resource. The objectives of the learning resource were clearly stated. I allowed other editors to join in the creation of the learning resource. Another editor jumped in and expanded the exploration. Its a wiki, try clicking "edit".

There is clearly a spectrum of views along the deletionist axis, and I started the learning project as a way to study and explore part of that axis. I've personally deleted hundreds of pages, but I think Wikiversity need not reflexively delete pages that are made in good faith by Wikiversity participants. I believe that Wikiversity should make use of tools such as Welcome templates to make new Wikiversity participants feel welcome. Wikiversity is a place where even youngsters can learn to edit in a safe and welcoming environment. We need not throw someone's first edit into the trash. When I saw the attempt to throw this page away I decided to develop the page.

"disruptive POV-pushing" <-- Its interesting that some people view development of a Wikiversity learning resource as disruptive. I wonder if every time I start a learning resource from now on my guardian angel will arrive and start shouting "POV-pushing". I created a learning resource designed to explore an analogy between some historical events and wiki deletionism. Now somebody apparently wants to import and apply Wikipedia rules and pretend that I was creating an encylopedia article. Really, lets apply the standards of Wikiversity. Did my learning resource teach the intended lesson? If not, everyone was free to jump in and fix things.

"disrupting the project to make a point about Wikiversity politics" <-- Someone is going to have to build me a lesson on Wikiversity politics. In that learning resource, please list and all of the elements of Wikiversity politics. Then create Policy - Do not discuss Wikiversity politics. Then I'll know which topics are banned at Wikiversity. I made a learning resource that was designed to teach a lesson. It was an exploration of deletionism. Is someone claiming that Wikiversity cannot have learning resources about deletionism? Why should my development of this learning resource "disrupt the project"? If you are not interested in the topic, just move along.

"parodying attempts to control his editing behaviour" <-- Policy - parody not allowed as a learning device. Can a learning project change someone's editing behavior? Oh Nos! We can't have that.

"hinder sensible development of the resource" <-- My learning project had a clearly stated learning objective. I dispute the claim that I hindered sensible development of this resource, other people had blanked it and wanted to delete it. I saved it from death.

"To a newcomer, it would create a bad impression of Wikiversity." <-- How so? I think it is important for new visitors to know that they risk having their work thrown away by deletionists.

"User:JWSchmidt is behaving as if he “owns” the page" <--everyone was free to join in development of the page. There is no evidence of "ownership".

"The issue of how to deal with the spoofing approaches led to a heated argument" <-- lighten up and try learning, have some fun. We learn by play.

Case 02: The speedy deletion template
At Wikiversity speedy deletion is for obvious vandalism, obvious copyright violations, or have other content that is obviously harming Wikiversity. There are continual attempts to use templates that apply Wikipedia's rules for deletion, such as listing these criteria: [nonsense and unsuitable]. I fixed the template to reflect Wikiversity's deletion rules by removing the wording that originated at Wikipedia. I also think it makes sense to have users of deletion templates provide a reason when they use the template. --JWSchmidt 09:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Case 03: The main page
The "Student union" page was created on 21 June 2006. As outlined at History of Wikiversity, the Wikiversity project was not approved until August 2006. In order for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to have some idea of what Wikiversity could become, a few "starter pages" were made for Wikiversity and connected by this template. The "Student union" page was created as one of a few main portals for Wikiversity participants; see the original Student union from the time before Wikiversity existed as an approved project.

In January 2008, it was proposed that the "Student union" page be deleted. At the deletions page, the reason for deleting this page was said to be: "This page is an ancient relic from a time when it looked like a good idea. It's unlikely this page will ever be developed, and it might encourage silliness." At that time, there was a link from the word "Students" in the introduction section of the Main Page to the "Student union" page (see this version). In my view, there are a few types of visitors to Wikiversity that we should anticipate, including students and teachers. We should have a link on the main page for new visitors who self-identify as students. When I noticed the proposed deletion, I objected to the proposed deletion of the "Student union" page.

On April 21, 2008, the link to the "Student union" page from the word "Students" in the introduction section of the Main Page was removed, a change that had been in the works since 19 March, but which had never been discussed. This month, when I noticed that the link had been removed, I created the link again and I started the "Student Study Project of the Month".

On September 4, almost nine months after starting the effort to delete the "Student union" page, the deletion tag was finally removed.

On September 5, the link to the "Student union" page from the word "Students" in the introduction section of the Main Page was again removed and plans were made to turn the "Student union" page into a totally inappropriate redirect to a page that does not even mention students.

Summary. In January, an attempt was made to delete the main Wikiversity portal page for new student participants. In April, with no discussion, the link from the introduction section of the Main Page to the "Student union" page was removed. Additional attempts have been made to prevent students from being able to follow a link from the main page to the main Wikiversity student portal. I have to ask: why would anyone work so hard to disrupt student participation at Wikiversity? I think we should have a link for students at the top of the main page.

Edit summaries. User:McCormack called me a troll (in the #wikiversity-en chat channel) and told me that he refuses to talk to me, leaving me with limited communications channels such as edit summaries. I'd be happy to stop sending messages to McCormack by way of edit summaries if he agrees to discuss his efforts to disrupt student participation at Wikiversity.

Also, note that McCormack continues to do the same thing that he is complaining about when I do it. Hmm..let me think...there is a word for this...

Case 04: Jon Awbrey user namespace abuse

 * I should say that while there can be legitimate disagreement about the correct course of action in this case, open hostility to other contributors is unacceptable. Since I don't consider myself a member of this community, I can certainly appreciate differing points of view on this issue, and indeed I attempted to have those views expressed at Meta - those attempts were pointedly rebuffed. The behaviour here is of concern, not his opinion (while I think he's wrong, that's not at issue). – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"reinserted the spam without discussion or establishment of consensus" <-- I dispute the characterization of this user page content as spam. Scholars often like to let people know about their interests. Wikiversity explicitly invites participants do share their interests by making use of their user page. I find it truly offensive to characterize a scholar's attempt to share their interests with Wikiversity as "spam". "without discussion or establishment of consensus" <-- unlike the person who rudely violated Wikiversity standards and deleted this user page content, I called for discussion of the content at Wikiversity.

"He should at least have added a deletion request tag" <-- Why?

"inappropriate discussion was started on the talk page" <-- I stand by this, as far as I know, it is the only comment from me on that page.

"closely working as a team for some weeks" <-- Moulton is my friend and a prized scholarly collaborator.

"makes it clear that User:Mike.lifeguard is not welcome on Wikiversity" <-- Mike is welcome here when he is working with the Wikiversity community in accord with our mission.

non-specific threats (e.g. “be afraid, be very afraid” <-- I cannot answer for another, but I think Multon was clearly commenting on the fact that Wikiversity should be afraid if outsiders feel free to censor our project.

User:JWSchmidt has “groomed” Moulton by exchanging sympathy for his Wikipedia woes in return for User:Moulton acting as a proxy for User:JWSchmidt on Wikiversity <-- alternatively, you see two scholars objecting to censorship

history of antagonism by User:JWSchmidt against User:Mike.lifeguard, which includes a block by User:JWSchmidt of a bot <-- If I block a bot that is putting bad templates on user talk pages, that does not mean that I have shown antagonism to anyone.

"attempts made by spam bots and spammers" <-- Anyone who can not distinguish between1) a Wikiversity scholar putting useful information on their user page and2) a spam bothas a serious problem.

"Resolution of issue: User:Mike.lifeguard reverted as per consensus decision on meta" <-- I do not recognize the authority of Meta to delete user page content that Wikiversity participants welcome.

"open hostility to other contributors is unacceptable" <-- I agree. Mike's repeated deletion of this user page content was unacceptable hostility directed at a Wikiversity participant.

--JWSchmidt 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Case 07: The consensus deletion template
"Edit-warring" <-- I was making good faith edits aimed at improving the template.

"inserting large amounts of opinion-text" <-- I stand by the inserted text. I was adding text in order to make the template reflect Wikiversity policy and culture.

"started to move in an anti-deletionist direction rather than being just neutral" <-- This deletion template was being misused. People were not reading and following Wikiversity deletion policy. In order to fix the problem, I was adding more information to the template.

"User:Adambro's edit was small, harmless and undoubtedly a small improvement " <-- I still believe that when a page is marked for deletion the reason should be given right on the page.

"User:JWSchmidt wanted a reason to be entered on the template using a parameter, but the template had no parameter, and User:JWSchmidt didn't know how to edit templates to use parameters" <-- I don't care how the reason for deletion is provided. I could have changed the template to add a parameter, but I did not think it was important that I do so. In my view, these templates make it too easy for people to mindlessly delete pages. In many cases where this template is misused, I think Wikiversity participants should not use this deletion template at all. Rather, they should contact the editors who made a page and discuss how to improve the page.

"using the template itself as a talk page" <-- I was collaboratively editing the page and all of my edits were good faith attempts to improve the template.

"User:JWSchmidt disrupted the functionality of Wikiversity" <-- this template had a history of being used by people who were not following Wikiversity policy, so I was trying to improve the template and prevent further misuse of the template.

"The template couldn't actually be left in that state" <-- Why not? I still prefer the version I created.

"many times larger than a template should be" <-- I do not agree. Instructions need to be provided.

sarcastic comment for his edit was that the template "was not long enough" <-- Factual comment.

"left a note on the talk page about the edit war" <-- I participated on the talk page and explained my attempt to improve the template. I was editing collaboratively, not edit waring.

As discussed here, on September 1 I was constructing a learning exercise about page deletion and long standing problems related to page deletion at Wikiversity. My edits to the deletion template on September 1 were a good faith attempt to improve the template and help Wikiversity participants use the template in harmony with Wikiversity policy and our culture.

User:JWSchmidt's "anger and frustration" <-- I admit that it is frustrating when Wikiversity participants delete the good faith contributions of their fellow editors.

Reply from JWSchmidt
This "case" is very close to the core of the difference of opinion between McCormack and myself. I have previously discussed this difference of opinion here. Short version: McCormack does not want Wikiversity to welcome students. He has worked hard to turn Wikiversity into a place where learners are not free to stumble upon this website and try to learn how to participate in a wiki community. In contrast, I feel that Wikiversity should welcome students and help them learn how to edit and make use of wiki technology to help them explore their learning goals. From before Wikiversity was launched, students were identified as one of the major groups of expected Wikiversity participants who should be welcomed and helped to participate constructively. Since McCormack does not agree that this welcoming of students should happen, he has tried hard to delete the main welcome page for students (the "student union"), remove the link from the top of the Main Page to the main welcome page for students and, when those efforts failed, he even tried to turn the the main welcome page for students into a redirect to another page that does not mention students. I have resisted McCormack's efforts. For my defense of Wikiversity, I have earned McCormack's ire. He called me a troll and told me that he will not talk to me. When he could not find a way to destroy the Wikiversity invitation to student participation he created this "review", a long list of false and distorted charges against me. He gathered a small group of other Wikiversity administrators who were willing to sign their names to the false and distorted charges against me. They used their false and distorted charges to "justify" blocking me from responding to all their false and distorted charges. They used their false and distorted charges to "justify" calling in a Steward to remove my custodial status. There was never any valid reason to block me and there was never any community consensus to remove my custodial status. The Wikiversity community has so far removed the bad block that was imposed on me. In my view, my custodial status was wrongly taken away and should be returned. Mu301, SB_Johnny, Cormaggio and McCormack made false and distorted charges against me and misused their custodial power block me from editing and remove my custodianship and have tried to "justify" their actions by pointing to the false charges they made against me. This is sickening and the most horrible abuse of power I have ever seen in a wiki community. Those who have made these false and distorted charges against me refuse to discuss these charges. They seem to expect me to confess to the false charges they have made against me or else "go fuck yourself and go away". I will not go away. I must face the sickening task of responding to all these false and distorted charges.

"Repeatedly publishing provocative and false claims about another admin in a parody-style page" <-- I created a learning resource that aimed to inform Wikiversity participants about the attempts being made to remove Wikiversity's invitation to student participation. "false claims" <-- what false claims did I make? I described that actions of McCormack as he tried to delete the student union page, remove the link from the main page to the student union page and turn the student union page into a redirect to another page that does not mention students. "about another admin" <-- it is irrelevant that McCormack is an admin except for the fact that he can edit the protected Main Page and remove (without discussion) important links such as the link to the student union. "parody-style page" <-- The page can be seen here. There is one sense in which this page might correctly be called a parody; that is, the page was made to "to broaden understanding of" the attempts that were made to remove Wikiversity's invitation to student participation.

"linking to this spoof/attack page from the main page" <-- It is clear that McCormack did not want the Wikiversity community to be aware of how he had worked so hard to remove Wikiversity's invitation to student participation. I am sure that most Wikiversity participants agree that Wikiversity should invite the participation of new Wikiversity visitors who self-identify as students. McCormack knew that he could never gain community consensus for the removal of Wikiversity's invitation to student participation, so he needed to work secretly to remove the link from the Main Page to the main welcome page for students. When he did not get away with that trick, he did not want attention focused on his attempt to turn the main welcome page for students into a redirect to a page that does not mention students. "spoof/attack page" <-- I described McCormack's actions. A standard way to game the system is to shout "personal attack" when you do not want your editing held up for community attention. McCormack is a master of gaming the system and his penchant for "spicing up" his false and distorted charges ("cases") with false labels such as "spoof" and "attack page" is just another indication of this. McCormack knows how to "push the buttons" of other wiki editors and gather a lynch mob. This is truly sickening behavior, particularly at a wiki that should be a beacon of scholarly integrity and where disputes over content should be resolved by consensus and honest discussion.

"edit-warring against numerous other users" <-- I dispute the charge that I edit warred. I created a learning resource. A few other editors did not like the learning resource I created. They attempted to edit-war in order to prevent me from creating a learning resource that showed how an effort was being made to remove Wikiversity's invitation to student participation. This is a perfectly valid learning resource of great relevance to Wikiversity participants who self-identify as students.

"12 consecutive reverts" <-- McCormack is intentionally making a false claim here. I was editing the page to create a learning resource. Other editors did often try to prevent me from constructing that learning resource by reverting my edits. I continued to build the learning resource as was my right as an editor. If McCormack wants to seriously defend this false charge he needs to define what he means by a "revert" and show that my edits meet that definition.

"attempts to exert page ownership" <-- This is another false charge. I invited other editors to contribute constructively to the page.

"ignoring consensus over the fate of a page" <-- False claims were made about consensus while I was adding content to the page. I pointed out the fact that the claims of consensus were false and I continued to develop the page.

"publishing wild conspiracy theories" <-- eh? "a deletionist conspiracy afoot" <-- In the learning resource I made, I described McCormack's attempt to delete the student union page. "to fuel a conspiracy theory of falsehoods" <-- McCormack needs to list the falsehoods. All I did was describe his actions. “Right now, the Wikiversity Student union is under attack by deletionists who cannot stand the idea that students might participate at Wikiversity.” <-- I stand by this description of what was happening at the student union page. The fact is that there is a small group of deletionists at Wikiversity and some of them were trying to destroy the student union page and remove Wikiversity's invitation to student participation. I would prefer not to describe this as a "conspiracy", I think it is more instructive to describe such behavior as a manifestation of "Wikipedia Disease", a misguided attempt to apply Wikipedia's standards for content deletion to Wikiversity.

700 words to respond to all the false and distorted charges just in McCormack's summary of "case 08". Are we having fun yet?

"the page did not seem to fit with anything else happening at Wikiversity" <-- I suppose that what McCormack means by "anything else happening at Wikiversity" is his extensive effort to remove Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors.

"during a revision of pages in the Wikiversity namespace" <-- McCormack has put through a vast number of unilateral changes to key Wikiversity pages as part of his effort to change Wikiversity from what was in the approved project proposal. McCormack's extensive campaign to re-make Wikiversity in his own image even includes petty gestures such as putting a big red X on the approved project proposal page. I stood up against his effort to pervert the Wikiversity project and so he made up a bunch of false and distorted charges against me and got me blocked, banned and de-sysoped. The damage done by McCormack has been very large and it will take a long time for the community to recover from the damage he has done. In my view, every one of his edits needs to be carefully evaluated by the Wikiversity community. In my view, much of what he has done here is not in the best interests of the Wikiversity community and should be un-done.

"User:McCormack (custodian) could think of no way of repurposing the page" <-- McCormack chafes at the idea that it is so hard to delete the work of other Wikiversity participants. Generally he has contented himself to "repurpose" pages that he knows he cannot delete. This means removing the original purpose of the page and re-writing the page to reflect McCormack's personal vision of Wikiversity. In the case of the "student union" the very name of the page was a problem for McCormack. He cannot stand the idea that there is a page at Wikiversity designed as a meeting place for new Wikiversity visitors who self-identify as students. He thinks that nothing good can from giving students a chance to congregate and explore their personal learning goals and interests. For McCormack, the only solution was to destroy the student union page, so he had to propose it for deletion.

"but as User:JWSchmidt then left Wikiversity for 7 months, nothing was done" <-- this is one of the standard methods by which deletionists game the system at wiki websites...they invent artificial time limits for wiki page editing. The truth of the matter is, that when I started to develop the student union page, McCormack swung into action to prevent me from developing the page. He only wants to destroy that page or, when that fails, "repurpose" it to remove its name and its function from Wikiversity. Yes, I had an unexpected and heavy workload, so McCormack complains that months went by without me editing the page he wanted to destroy. In my view, the student union page was well-designed for its simple but important function. That function was to make new Wikiversity participants who self-identify as students feel welcome and start shifting their thinking from being a student to being a wiki editor and Wikiversity participant. I felt no burning need to change the student union page until McCormack continued to make attempts to destroy the page and remove Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and destroy the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors.

"rather than creating a proper student portal as he had originally asked to be able to do, he revived the obsolete deletion proposal by User:McCormack as a centrepiece of an attack against User:McCormack as a 'deletionist'" <-- I can agree that there are many positive things I could be doing at Wikiversity if I did not have to deal with all the problems McCormack has created. I was in the process of collaborating with other Wikiversity editor to develop the main portal page for students when I was blocked from editing at Wikiversity....a bad block that has been "justified" by pointing to the false and distorted charges made against me by McCormack. "he revived the obsolete deletion proposal" <-- I described McCormack's ill-conceived attempt to delete the student union page as part of a learning resource that documented his many attempts to remove Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and destroy the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors. "an attack against User:McCormack as a 'deletionist'" <-- McCormack is an expert at gaming the system, in this case complaining that he is being "attacked" if someone calls his editing to the attention of the Wikiversity community. Describing someone's editing is not an attack. The term "deletionist" is widely used an understood in wiki communities. There is a spectrum of positions from deletionist to inclusionist and I know how to use these terms. If McCormack is made uncomfortable by my use of the term "deletionist" he should stop trying to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity participants. Of course, his vision for Wikiversity does not include welcoming the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity participants, so there is going to be conflict: I will always challenge the deletion of good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants. Rather than discuss his desires to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity participants, his approach was to make a long list of false and distorted charges against me and use those false and distorted charges to have me banned, blocked and de-sysoped. I will never allow this methodology to become acceptable practice at Wikiversity....McCormack's methodology for dispute resolution is toxic to the basic principles of scholarly learning that Wikiversity stands for.

"Despite the clear and long-met consensus on the issue of keeping and repurposing the page" <-- I dispute the claim that there was ever any consensus on "repurposing" the student union page.

"User:JWSchmidt insisted that there was a deletionist conspiracy afoot" <-- If McCormack wants to make this charge against me he needs to list the edits where I "insisted" that there is a "deletionist conspiracy afoot". There are a few deletionists at Wikiversity whose actions I have challenged. I will continue to challenge Wikiversity participants who pursue their desires to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity participants. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia and we do not need to adopt the criteria and standards for deletion that are used at Wikipedia or any other wiki. Wikiversity welcomes new editors helps them become good wiki editors. Page deletion is for vandalism, certainly not a tool for McCormack to use in his efforts to adjust Wikiversity to his own personal mission in violation of the existing Wikiversity mission and policies.

"a 'learning project' about 'User:McCormack’s deletionism', which was only thinly linked to the page title" <-- In my view, it is likely that every new Wikiversity visitor who self-identifies as a student will be interested to learn about McCormack's efforts to destroy the student union page. The student union is a fully appropriate place for a learning resource about McCormack's attempt to remove Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and destroy the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors.

"his spoof project about User:McCormack" <-- This is another false clam by McCormack. Wikiversity has had a long history of having a prominent link from the top of the Main Page to the main student portal page. McCormack secretively worked to remove that link in the hope that nobody would notice when he removed it. I was busy in the real world but when I returned to Wikiversity I noticed McCormack's trick and I returned the link. "spoof project" <-- I know of know meaning for the word "spoof" that can be used in the context of the learning resource I made for the student union page. My learning resource informed Wikiversity participants about McCormack's attempt to remove Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and destroy the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors.

"new and previously unknown claims about the “importance” of the student union page" <-- McCormack has systematically worked to ignore, obscure, and bury the history of Wikiversity and its approved project proposal. I suppose McCormack feels it is terribly unfair any time someone points out the fact that his vision of Wikiversity is at odds with the approved project proposal and the policies that have been developed by the Wikiversity community. Since McCormack does not like Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and destroy the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors, he sees no “importance” of the student union page. He cannot even use the term “importance” in the context of that page without putting it quotes because he so dislikes the idea of students coming to Wikiversity to pursue their personal learning goals.

"fuel a conspiracy theory of falsehoods about User:McCormack damaging Wikiversity" <-- What are the "falsehoods" McCormack is thinking of at this point? Is he claiming that it is false that the student union page was designed before Wikiversity launched and then functioned successfully for years as the major student portal at Wikiversity? Is he claiming that he did not try to delete the major student portal at Wikiversity? Is he claiming that he did not remove the link from the Main Page to the major student portal at Wikiversity? Is he claiming that he did not try to turn the major student portal at Wikiversity into a redirect to a page that does not mention students? Is he claiming that ha has not done damage to Wikiversity by pushing his extensive attempts to remove Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and destroy the system we had for inviting them to participate at Wikiversity as editors? My learning resource that described McCormack's actions was simply a way to bring his actions to the attention of other Wikiversity participants. McCormack did not want the community's attention placed on his actions because he knows that most Wikiversity participants do not support his personal view of what Wikiversity should be.

"an image subtitled with the slogan 'encourage silliness'" <-- As a biologist and an educator who has spent decades studying learning, I recognize the importance of play in human learning. McCormack seems to believe that Wikiversity is a place for structured learning like you might find in some regimented conventional classroom of 1900. McCormack cannot stand the idea that students might engage in "learn by doing projects" such as the learning exercise I created at the student union page. According to McCormack we must ban all silliness from Wikiversity...learning certainly cannot be fun.

"User:McCormack reverted the page back to its original state, citing incivility" <-- McCormack's claim of incivility was another false claim made by him against me. This is another standard method for gaming the system in wiki communities....it goes hand-in-hand with claiming that any description of an editor's edits is a "personal attack". Similarly, any any description of an editor's edits can always be called "incivil". When you are gaming the system in this way, you never have to provide evidence of an attack or of incivility, you just complain to other editors that you have been "attacked" by someone who is "incivil". The goal is to find a clueless sysop who will believe you an ban the person who has "attacked" you. McCormack gamed the system well and got me banned, blocked and de-sysoped. So far, the Wikiversity community has removed the bad block against me...there was never any reason to block me from editing. An attempt has been made to point to the false and distorted claims made against me in order to "justify" banning, blocking and de-sysoping me. These efforts continue to this day and are the reason why I have to take the time to refute all of the false and distorted charges that have been made against me.

"User:JWSchmidt reverted User:McCormack at [34]" <-- A rather standard definition of "revert" in the context of a wiki is, "Reverting involves returning a page to a previous version." The edit that McCormack is here calling a "revert" produced the following substantial changes to the page. In particular, this was the change from my previous edit of the page. McCormack needs to tell us what definition of "revert" he is using and how my edits fit that definition. My edits cannot be called "reverts" by any definition I am aware of. I was engaged in the process of developing the student union page. Many of the edits made to that page by other edits were reverts made in an attempt to prevent me from developing the page.

"claiming that his materials were genuine 'learning activities' (although the page was in the project namespace and entitled as something other than a learning page)" <-- as I developed the page I created a learning resource tat described how McCormack had tried to delete the page, remove an important link to the page and turn the page into a useless redirect. I included learn by doing activities in the learning resource I made. There is no reason for McCormack to put "learning activities" is quotes and pretend that this was not a genuine learning resource. I make no apologies for adding a learning resource to a page in the Wikiversity namespace. The student union page was a good place to inform Wikiversity participants about McCormack's attempt to destroy the student union page...I cannot think of a better place. In my experience, students are greatly stimulated to learn when they are told about attempts to deprive them of learning opportunities and resources.

"clearly marking User:McCormack out as the alleged conspirator against Wikiversity" <-- I was providing an accurate account of the history of the student union page. If McCormack wants to call himself an "alleged conspirator against Wikiversity" then he is free to do so, but he should not clutter up a review of my editing with his subjective labels for his own actions. The learning resource I made does not use the word "conspirator". McCormack's self-selected terminology does raise the question: was someone acting as a "conspirator against Wikiversity"? That is food for thought and it is interesting that the thought was on McCormack's mind.

"The removed content will serve to distance new users from this project” <-- I do not agree. In my experience, students are greatly stimulated to learn when they are told about attempts to deprive them of learning opportunities and resources.

"User:JWSchmidt reverted User:Salmon_of_Doubt at [36] almost immediately." <-- Another false claim. My edit was not a "revert". My edit did not return the page to a previous version of the page...I continued to develop the page.

"describing User:JWSchmidt’s edits as 'hostile' " <-- This is another common way to game the system at wiki communities: claim falsely that another editor is motivated by hostility. I was developing a learning resource for Wikiversity and other editors tried to prevent me from developing the student union page. I was not hostile. I'll leave it as an exercise for objective observers to judge if there was hostility coming from the editors who wanted to destroy the student union and prevent me from creating a learning resource that described those attempts to destroy the student union.

"User:JWSchmidt reverted again within about 15 minutes (his 4th revert against 3 other editors on the same day)" <-- It is not clear which of my edits he is calling "reverts". McCormack needs to define what he means by "revert" and show that specific edits I made were really reverts. He has not done so.

"User:Dark_Mage began building a proper student portal about a week later" <-- I dispute McCormack's claim that the original student union page was not a proper student portal. I still prefer the original version over the page made by Dark_Mage.

"Page ownership claim....User:JWSchmidt argued that as he created the page, he knew what its purpose was (and therefore by implication was entitled to determine its content)" <-- McCormack never explains where I made this claim. The truth is easy to find, since I invited other people to work with me to develop the student union page. "agreeing on a student or participants portal where learners could be guided to all learning resources" <-- I do not agree that this was ever agreed on...that is not the function of the student union page.

Summary. McCormack was not happy that I prevented him from destroying Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and that I foiled his attempt to destroy the system we had for inviting students to participate at Wikiversity as editors. McCormack was not happy that I created a learning resource that described his effort to delete and otherwise disrupt the main Wikiversity student portal page. It was entirely proper for me to defend the long-standing invitation extended by Wikiversity to new student participants. The learning resource I created was a very useful learning resource for student participants at Wikiversity. Because I have prevented McCormack from undermining the mission of Wikiversity he called me a troll and made a large number of false and distorted charges against me. He used those false and distorted charges against me to get me banned, blocked and de-sysoped. I will continue to refute all of the false and distorted charges McCormack against me. It makes me physically ill to read the false and distorted charges McCormack manufactured and to think about the damage he has done to Wikiversity. I hope that by answering all these false and distorted charges I can help the Wikiversity community avoid this kind of witch hunt in the future. --JWSchmidt 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Case 09: The "browse" page
{{evbox
 * 09
 * title= browse
 * by=User:McCormack, User:SB_Johnny
 * parties=User:JWSchmidt
 * repairs= User:Jtneill
 * edit=
 * date= 1st September 2008
 * summary= Insertion of complaints about a page at the top of the page, rather than on the talk page.
 * description= The browse page is linked from the sidebar of Wikiversity and is therefore accessible with just one click from any other page on Wikiversity. It is a very high profile page. The browse page allows access to pretty well every categorised page on Wikiversity, using multiple routes.

On 1st September, User:JWSchmidt inserted perspectively skewed comments into the introduction at the top of the page. The comments made the page take on a "vandalised" appearance as if a college student had experimented with the text. The comments contained complaints about the page which were false. One complaint was that despite its 1000's of links, the page deliberately or conspiratorially hid content - such as freshly created content. In fact the page contained a visible link to the "freshly created resources" category. The complaint also unjustifiably implied that the only way to get listed on this page was to create "featured" content. In fact featured content was linked to with only one of many hundreds of visible categories. The complaint then ended with a "warning" to users not to trust the page and accused the page of bias, although the page was actually generated programmatically from the category system.

The page was repaired by User:Jtneill (custodian) about a day later.

JWSchmidt comments on "The browse page"
My edit provided useful balance to what was an existing deceptive claim about the Browse page. The Browse page originally functioned to facilitate the development of Wikiversity content. Before I made this edit, many of the most important links from the Browse page to Wikiversity content had been systematically removed from the Browse page. 99.9999% of Wikiversity remains to be imagined and created by Wikiversity participants. An effort had been made to hide that fact from Wikiversity participants and pretend that the Browse page need only link to a particular subset of Wikiversity content, without retaining the original major emphasis of the page on content development. It is deceptive and damaging to Wikiversity to try to pretend that content development and welcoming new contributors is not the most important thing for the Browse page to accomplish. "The comments made the page take on a "vandalised" appearance as if a college student had experimented with the text" <-- It is an interesting claim that correcting an existing bias on an important page causes the page to look "vandalised". This is an interesting way to game the system: "repurpose" a page to subvert its original purpose (doing damage to the Wikiversity project in the process) and then charge that any attempt to correct the problem is vandalism. "The complaint also unjustifiably implied that the only way to get listed on this page was to create 'featured' content." <-- This is a false charge: no such implication was made. "The complaint then ended with a 'warning' to users not to trust the page and accused the page of bias, although the page was actually generated programmatically from the category system." <-- It is irrelevant to point to what is on the page. The point of my edit was to draw attention to important links that had been removed from the page. It is interesting that I have been charged with page ownership for adding a learning resource to a page, but other Wikiversity participants can "repurpose" an important Wikiversity page to subvert its original purpose and then charge me with vandalism for challenging that repuposing and correcting a bias on the page....gee...that almost seems like someone has .... claimed ownership of the Browse page. This is strangely similar how I could not be permitted to return a long-standing link to the Main Page after it had been secretly (with no discussion) engineered out of existence by McCormack. "Insertion of complaints about a page at the top of the page, rather than on the talk page" <-- McCormack wants the power to determine where all Wikiversity content is located. It serves his purpose to hide from the Wikiversity community all complaints about his disruptive editing. I prefer a direct approach to confronting McCormack's "repuposing" of pages. Why should he be free to make deceptive claims on important pages without any balance provided right there where it is needed? It is particularly silly for McCormack to suggest that more use be made of talk pages. McCormack called me a troll and told me that he refuses to talk to me. If I were dealing with a normal member of the community who was willing to discuss matters, then talk page discussions would be a viable option. However, McCormack is part of a special team of custodians that does not have to be civil and follow policy, so I feel free to defend Wikiversity from his disruption using the direct method of editing Wikiversity pages so as to correct problems that McCormack has created. In order to game the system, he makes false charges about my editing such as implying that my edit is apparent vandalism. --JWSchmidt 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

}}

Introductory comments
There are 5 known cases of User:JWSchmidt declaring policy without consensus, and a 6th case of enforcing a policy as official when it had not been written. For perspective: there are only 3 policies on Wikiversity which have been validly officialised by consensus - most official policy has been made by unannounced unilateral declaration by User:JWSchmidt. Some official policy also exists as a Wikimedia Foundation requirement (local project consensus not admitted).

The cases of improper policy officialisation are all slightly different. In one case a clearly rejected policy was reintroduced; in another the consensus was too low for rejection/acceptance; in a third case the vote had been in favour of the policy, but the policy had not been officialised for an unknown reason (possibly voting was too low); in a fourth case the policy was never voted on at all but just written by User:JWSchmidt; in a fifth case a policy had been discussed in a small group, but never written down at all despite being enforced by User:JWSchmidt against other users (this particular case is not cited below).

In a final case, a custodian discovered what User:JWSchmidt had done within a few months and reverted, but not without considerable resistance from User:JWSchmidt. During this episode, User:JWSchmidt withheld the information that he had improperly officialised a number of further policies. The further cases slowly came to light over a year later.

In addition to these cases, there have also been problems with policy enforcement. User:JWSchmidt has tended to apply and enforce policy to suit his purposes, and has easily done this on a project where most users are inexperienced. A form of argument that has been used during debate is this: "it is true that policy says that X is not allowed; but X has two meanings and the policy only means one of these, and what I am doing is the other" (an example of this argument was where "X = advocacy").

Reply from JWSchmidt
I will respond to each of these "cases", below, but I need to respond to the "Introductory comments", above. The custodians making these charges about "policy manipulation" either do not understand how a wiki website functions or they have published these charges against me as part of their strategy for making a bunch of false charges and then banning, blocking and desysoping without allowing discussion of their false charges. In my view, the custodians making these charges should know how a wiki works, so these absurd charges cannot be excused by their ignorance. It is truly sickening that the normal process of developing policy for a wiki and applying policy is here called "policy manipulation". --JWSchmidt 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to case 21
The Cite sources policy was created the day after the launch of Wikiversity and there has never been an argument made against the good practice of citing sources. The Wikiversity community was specifically tasked by the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees with the creation of a policy for research. "with no discussion and no notification to the community" <-- The charge that I "manipulated policy" without discussion and notification is absurd. From the start of Wikiversity I engaged in discussions of Wikiversity policy (exercise for the reader: count the number of posts I made to the Policies talk page on the first day of Wikiversity's existence). Creation of research policy was made an explicit priority by the Foundation and I made sure that the community was aware of the on-going effort to develop research policy (for example). In March 2007 there was a very well publicize community meeting for review of the drafted research policies. After that meeting, it was time to make the policy structure official.

A part of the research policy calls for citing sources. In may of 2007, I made a template that listed the research policy pages at beta Wikiversity. Like the research policy, fundamental and long-standing Wikiversity policies such as Reliable sources refer to and depend upon the Cite sources policy. A week after making an organizational template for beta Wikiversity policy, I got around to the task of making a similar list of policies for the English language Wikiversity. I made a selection of the existing policies that I judged to be non-controversial and gave them the label "official". Two months later, User:SB Johnny decided that Cite sources should not be official policy based on votes that had been cast without any reasons given. I stand by the principle that consensus is reached on the basis of reasoned arguments, not simple yes/no voting. I still have not seen a reason offered for why Cite sources should not be official Wikiversity policy. That policy is fundamental to the Wikiversity mission and it is absurd for it to be stripped of the "official" designation without any valid reason for demoting it.

"consensus does not count" <-- This is an absurd charge. Consensus is not established in a wiki community by simple yes/no votes. If there is no reason given for a course of action, there can be no consensus for that course of action.

"the policy should have been tagged as 'rejected'" <-- I find it truly alarming that the four Wikiversity custodians who published these false and twisted charges against me believe that citing sources should not be part of Wikiversity policy. I call on them to defend this incredible position.

It is now a long-standing and continuing source of shame for the Wikiversity community that we do not have Cite sources as an official policy. This is directly due to User:SB Johnny who violates policy at his own discretion, struts around saying "I can get away with things that nobody else can get away with" and he has also refused to help develop critically needed policies such as Privacy policy. The damage done by such resistance to the development of needed Wikiversity policies is huge and continuing. I feel it is important for the Wikiversity community to carefully examine the actions and motivations of of Wikiversity custodians who systematically undermine the Wikiversity project in this way while at the same time making absurd charges against me suggesting that I "manipulate policy". --JWSchmidt 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Case 22: The "verifiability" policy
{{evbox
 * 22
 * title= Verifiability (policy)
 * by=User:McCormack, User:SB_Johnny
 * parties=User:JWSchmidt
 * repairs= n.a.
 * edit =
 * date = 14th Feb 2007
 * summary = officialising policy without consensus and without notifying the community
 * description = Known voting: in one place, the voting was 1-1 (1 for, 1 against); in another place it is 2-1. Either way, this is far too little participation for approval of a policy. Those policies which were agreed on at the foundation of Wikiversity were officialised by User:Trevor MacInnis in late August 2006; the later tagging by User:JWSchmidt was not sanctioned by the community.

Reply for "case 22" by JWSchmidt
As for "case 21", Verifiability is one of a group of policies that is important for Wikiversity and the Wikiversity research policy that was explicitly requested by the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees. I make no apologies for my efforts to develop Wikiversity and the research policy and other related policies. The charge that I "manipulated policy" by my good faith efforts to find collaborators to develop these policies, hold community discussions about these policies and finally to designate them as official is absurd and sickening. That such absurd charges have been used to "justify" blocking, banning and desysoping me is outrageous. The "verifiability" policy interlocks with the Cite sources policy and both should be official policy. They both support the research policy and other scholarly activities at Wikiversity. Even if a policy is marked as official it is always open for discussion and modification or removal. Wikiversity was created with a mandate from the Foundation that we develop a research policy within six months. I took this seriously and worked to complete the research policy. Other Wikiversity participants have obstructed policy development by voting "no" without discussion and making flat negative statements such as "This policy is highly premature", without providing a supporting arguments. In my view, such negative votes and statements that are not supported by reasons cannot be claimed to prevent other Wikiversity participants from being bold and acting in good faith to establish a minimal set of policies designed to show the Foundation that Wikiversity had acted to provide the policy that was requested by the Trustees. --JWSchmidt 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) }}

Case 23: The "reliable sources" policy
{{evbox
 * 23
 * title= Reliable sources (policy)
 * by=User:McCormack, User:SB_Johnny
 * parties=User:JWSchmidt
 * repairs= n.a.
 * edit =
 * date = 14th Feb 2007
 * summary = Officialising policy without consensus and without notifying the community
 * description = The voting on this policy had been 4 in favour and 1 against. However the discussion was never wound up and the participants did not say whether they thought that consensus had been reached. Those policies which were agreed on at the foundation of Wikiversity were officialised by User:Trevor MacInnis in late August 2006; the later tagging by User:JWSchmidt does not appear to have been sanctioned by the community.

Reply to "case 23" from JWSchmidt
Reliable sources is an interlocking policy with Verifiability and Cite sources. These three policies work together to make sure that reliable and verifiable sources are cited to support information on Wikiversity webpages. These policies support the Wikiversity research policy, which was explicitly requested by the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees. As discussed above for "case 21" and "case 22", the charge that I manipulated policy by working to develop Reliable sources and designate it as official policy is absurd and part of an orchestrated attempt to pile up false and distorted charges that would be used to "justify" blocking, banning and desysoping me. I stand behind my efforts to develop this and other important policies at Wikiversity. That normal good faith wiki editing and development of the Wikiversity project is called "manipulation" is truly sickening. --JWSchmidt 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

}}

Reply from JWSchmidt for "case 24"
Tools for quickly reverting vandalism are a useful feature of MediaWiki. There have always been wiki participants who are tempted to use the vandalism reverting tools for purposes other than reverting vandalism, so it is important for wikis to have policies that say only use these tools for reverting vandalism. I stand behind the idea that Wikiversity should have such a rule. Treating good faith edits as if they were vandalism by using the revert tools is truly offensive in a community such as Wikiversity where we are dedicated to learning and using discussion to settle any disputes. The fact that there are Wikiversity custodians who feel it is their right to use the revert tools on good faith edits of Wikiversity participants is truly alarming, but only a symptom of the larger problem of abusive custodians who make a habit of misusing their power. I am proud to take a stand against those who treat good faith edits as if they were vandalism. I call upon all Wikiversity participants who want to use the revert tools to revert non-vandalism as if it were vandalism to come forward and explain to the Wikiversity community why you feel it is your right to do so. I find it truly sickening that four Wikiversity custodians with charge me with "policy manipulation" because I have worked to make sure that the anti-vandalism revert tools are only used for their intended purpose. --JWSchmidt 17:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply by JWSchmidt to "case 25"
The rules for custodians were worked out by means of a large number of discussions and collaborative editing. The rules for selection of custodians and the description of what custodians do was needed for the growth and functioning of the Wikiversity community. The claim that marking a needed policy as "official" is in some way "policy manipulation" is absurd and this charge was only manufactured in an attempt to assemble a large number of false and distorted charges that were then used to "justify" blocking, banning and desysoping me. I'd be interested to see any reason for why the custodianship policy should not be listed as official policy. Marking the policy as official was a formality that I could not imagine causing an objection. My edit summary "it seems to work" still seems adequate to me. What more needed to be said? I think the Wikiversity community should closely examine the actions of Wikiversity participants who, rather than help develop needed policies, have obstructed their development, tried to prevent them from being marked "official" and have even ignored them and violated them. Marking a policy as "official" does not end discussion of the policy, editing of the policy or even prevent the policy from being removed if the community has second thoughts. I reject the idea that the only way to move ahead at Wikiversity is by having votes. I admit to making a large number of edits, many more important than marking the custodianship policy as official without first holding a vote. Votes might be useful under some situations, but for most wiki editing there is no use in holding a vote before making an edit. --JWSchmidt 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply by JWSchmidt to Case 36
User:McCormack has worked hard to ignore, undermine and replace the Wikimedia Foundation-approved Wikiversity project proposal. User:McCormack is not interested in Wikiversity as a wiki where learners are encouraged to participate and learn by editing and participating in "learn by doing" projects. All Wikiversity participants should become familiar with the history of Wikiversity and the two Wikiversity project proposals. I challenge the validity of suggestions such as those by McCormack and in these comments by Cormaggio that 1) the learning model of the original Wikiversity project proposal was not rejected and 2) that the "learn by doing model" of the approved project proposal was not approved. Having said that, nobody has objected to allowing exploration of additional approaches to using Wikiversity to support learning. The only problem is that McCormack tried to write the "learn by doing model" out of Wikiversity. I prevented him from writing the "learn by doing model" out of Wikiversity. In retaliation, McCormack manufactured a large number of false and distorted charges against me and found three other custodians to assist him in using those false and distorted charges to block, ban and desysop me. This is truly outrageous and sickening behavior. I did not, and will never, allow McCormack to push through his plan for how to dis-invite learners from Wikiversity and replace it with his personal alternative vision of Wikiversity. Because I stood in his way, McCormack called me a troll and told me he would never discuss Wikiversity issues with me again. Rather than discuss his plan to change the Foundation-approved Wikiversity project, he set about trying to have me removed from the project. For my defense of the Foundation-approved Wikiversity project, I have won the privilege of having to deal with the team of abusive custodians assembled by McCormack including one who proudly assets that I should have been blocked without reason and never unblocked, one who calls me a "whiner" for protesting the bad block that was imposed on me and one who told me to fuck off and leave the project if I cannot adapt myself to the abuses of power exercised by this gang of policy-violating custodians. It is truly sickening that these misguided custodians accuse me of "policy manipulation" for defending the Foundation-approved Wikiversity project proposal and the idea that Wikiversity is a wiki where learners can learn by editing. --JWSchmidt 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Case 32: User:Mike.lifeguard's bot account

 * Indeed this case is why my bot has not run any tasks here since the date of unblock. I have stated to User:SB Johnny (for whom I have run bot tasks on numerous occasions) that I will not run a bot here without a strong consensus (such that User:JWSchmidt cannot get away with similar hostility). Again, I can understand disagreement over the issue here (and actually I am partly to blame), but the behaviour is unacceptable - open hostility towards any contributor for any reason should not be tolerated. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 01:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User:JWSchmidt/Review


text:
Linux adaptations for UMPC design

This article contains adjustments necessairy to the Linux OS in order to allow a special way of working with a proposed UMPC-design.

Suggestion 1:Simplification of the Bourne Again Shell (on which Linux, like Fedora, works)
The Bourne Again Shell has, during its long lifetime, gained several improvements and thus new programs. This has had as a result that to perform a same specific task, the user is bothered with a large amount of overlapping programs.

Although Linux' self-correcting community might have resolved this earlier, as it is no longer actively used (now graphic interfaces are used instead) no corrections have been made for these flaws. Besides a large amount of overlapping programs, the command line interface has also a number of features which can be dismissed and replaced by other existing commands, hereby making a huge simplification possible.

Examples on this are:
 * viewing of a text file: this can be done by a large amount of programs as vi, pico, less, more, ... One of these programs can be picked, and can be made executable by the command "read".

 * the unnecessary grep-command; instead locate with a specific option (thus locate -xx) can perform this function if locate is altered so it allows this

 * The unnecessary possibility of using relative pathnames, this can be replaced by only allowing absolute pathnames

 * The unnecessary pwd-command; instead the current directory can just be shown in the command line itself (similar as in DOS).

 * The unnecessary "mkdir" and "rmdir" commands; these can be swapped for the current "rm" command (which should be renamed to respectively the "make" and "remove" command)

 * The "make" command can be renamed to the "compile" command

 * The unnecessary append I/O redirection and piping option; instead of using append (>>) one can simply use overwrite (>) instead

 * The write permissions included with files should no longer include type-information (only gives extremely limited information and would be better checked with the filename-extension. Also, support for a sticky bit (-t permission) should be dropped. Thus instead of presenting eg drwxrw-rw- this would become rwxrw-rw-

 * the possible use of general points in folders (not being part of the extension) should be dropped. Thus folders named foo.bar etc can no longer be created. This has caused allot of confusion in the past.

 * commands as ls for listing folders, rm for deleting files, mv for renaming files, "cp for copying files, ... are best changed to simple commandnames as "list", "remove", "rename", "copy", ... Changing the commands to these simpler commandnames makes it easier to remember them. In the linux version proposed at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Improved_UMPC_design ,the "list" command is no longer useful at all as by typing in "cd" together with a path, a window automatically opens showing the contents of that folder. So, "list" can be deleted in this linux version. However, in other linux versions it still has purpose. In these, "list" should automatically list the filenames as filename.extension. This way, the -F function no longer needs to be used. Folders should hereby be given their own specific extension aswell. The "remove" command should always be recursive; that way the -r option no longer needs to be used. Perhaps it can be made standard to let the system ask for a confirmation however.

 * a new command can be created called "move". This can be used to copy a file to a different location, and delete the file at its old location.

P.S.: Text also implemented to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bash#The_BASH.27_lack_of_simplification

Suggestion 2: Altering of the standard Linux directory tree structure
Secondly, linux's Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' (FHS) directory tree structure should be altered, so that physical drives and imiginary folders/directory's are no longer used together. At the moment, for example physical drives are mapped in /dev while /, or /root (which are actually on a physical drive and should of been thus actually marked in a folder under /dev), ... are at a maplevel higher. It would be far better sense if the drives are placed under the root folder (/). The drives connected hereon would simply show their contence. The main drive (on which Fedora is placed) would then get the systems folder and user folders, ...

It also makes good sense to actually make the main drive (on which the operating system is placed) non-writable (after the operating system is made fully ready -ie all required programs allready being installed-. Making the main drive non-writable can be done by setting the permissions. This has the advantage that the file system (ie register, ...) does not get corrupted after a period of use, which then requires a format and OS-reinstall.

In addition to this renaming of the logical drives, standard names for partitions too are to be altered. Instead of the now common names (hda, sdb, hda1, hda2, ..) these are to become Partition1, Partition2, Partition3, Swap (for the swap partition), ... The extra information obtained from the hd+a-d difference is negligable, especially as only hot swappable drives should be supported anyway (which have no slave/master/auto option) the latter tending to confuse users.

More information Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

Standard linux partition names http://linux.org.mt/article/partnames

Suggestion 3: Dropping support for a variety of useless/surplus file formats and protocols in favor of one good file format/protocol (per type)
Firstly, the linux-distro (eg Fedora) could drop its support for outdated/archaïc aswell as recent/new but unusable file formats. Rather than supporting a wealth of file formats, it is better to only support one good file format per type ( e.g. lossy/lossless audio encoding, lossless and lossy video encoding, compression and/or archiving format, ...). By a good file format I mean that one that has the best qualifications for which it is intented and which is open-source/free file format.

Aldough thus fewer formats can be played/executed, simplification and thus no longer supporting it would make computing simpler for the user itself and it would also allow Fedora of operating faster (as lesser code is required). Having a wealth of file formats supported not only confuses the user, but also makes him unaware what file-type to use in what situation (eg .tar.gz or .bz2 for tape archiving?) As Fedora is specifically targeted at the developing world (which still has mostly low-schooled people), this simplification may prove essential.

PS: Other Linux distributions as Gobuntu also feature solely open formats, yet this suggestion would still be different as it would allow but a single format per type, with the intent to simplify matters. This offcourse is not yet achieved in these distrubutions.

Examples are :
 * .xcf and .svg for pictures
 * OGG Vorbis instead of MP3, WMA, ... for lossy audio encoding
 * Flac or Monkey's Audio instead of WAV, ... for lossless audio encoding
 * .odt-files instead of .doc
 * an open source combined compression and archiving file format as .7z to make a compressed and archived file (compressed file format alone aswell as archived file format alone not needed; when an open-source executable/install archiving format as rpm or paf aswell is supported )
 * an open source archiving file format as .tar
 * only UTF-8 for emails

In addition to dropping support for these file formats, allot of protocols aswell as environmentally damaging media should be dropped aswell. Besides in the intrest of the environment, the cd media (CD/DVD/DVDRAM/Blue-Ray, ...)would also be dropped as they only have a very limited lifetime, are easily corrupted and are not at all durable.

Examples: SFTP instead of FTP support for parallel and serial connections with devices should be dropped in favor of SATA, USB2 and FireWire800 support for USB1 should be dropped support for appletalk should be dropped support for the older ethernet cards/cables and protocols should be dropped, aswell as token ring ATM, ... in favor of PowerLine Communication (PLC)and gigabit ethernet support for old forms of WiFi (802.11a-g) should be dropped in favor of WiMax and the new WiFi-protocol (802.11n) (if used) support for Floppy's, CD/DVD/DVDRAM/Blue-Ray, should be dropped in favor of the best type of flash memory (CompactFlash?), and USB-sticks and external harddisks

Aldough this would transform the Linux version on which these suggestions are implemented more and more to a embedded form of Linux, this would actually be very beneficial. This as not only matters are simplified greatly, but also as the processor needed to run the Linux-distro can be far less potent/energy consuming than normal. A example on this can be seen with the ECB_AT91 microcomputer and the ECB_ATmega32/644 microcomputer.

More information Free file formats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_file_format Comparisation of audio codecs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs Comparisation of container formats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_container_formats Comparisation of archive formats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archive_formats Secure FTP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFTP USB2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB2#USB_2.0 FireWire 800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire#FireWire_800_.28IEEE_1394b.29 Serial ATA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA WiFi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi Flash Memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory Powerline Communication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communication Gigabit Ethernet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_gigabit_Ethernet

ECB AT91 and ECB_ATmega32/644 using a embedded linux and being able to run on a 180mhz cpu and 20 mhz cpu respectively http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECB_AT91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECB_ATmega32/644

Suggestion 4: Dropping support for dual booting
At the moment, most linux-distro's still support the possibility of dual booting (that is: having multiple Operating Systems on a single device/drive from which one may be selected to run on startup). I believe it is best that this dual booting feature, along with the programs which support this and which are usually standard included in a regular installation should be best dropped. This will reduce many of the hassles frequently encountered with linux installations and make sure that everything is kept simple and more efficient. Instead of this dual booting by having 2 OS' on 1 disk, random booting of other OS's may still be done, but then trough physically connecting another drive (HD, USB-stick, ...) on which an other OS is installed. Selecting which OS to load first would be done merely trough the BIOS (boot sequence can be altered here).

As people will revert to this technique, this approach would become more popular/easy and fits with the trend emerging to divert to a more easy and hot swappable form of computing/connecting of devices. As USB-sticks are rapidly becoming cheap and are already capable of storing entire OS' (eg Mac-on-a-Stick, Knoppix, LindowsLive, MojoPac, ...) and as all HD's are becoming hot swappable nowadays (trough Serial ATA/USB2/IEEE1394/...), this would prove far easier/simpler.

Having gone trough the troubles described myself with this "dual booting", lack of hot swappability (with E-IDE HD's, "jumpers" had to be manually set) and troubles/corruption of the "bootloaders/master boot record" on HD's, I am hoping that this might become a valid action which may be taken to make computers simpler/more efficient to operate.

More information: Hot swapping and types of HD's and other devices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_swapping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MojoPac http://portableapps.com/apps/operating_systems/mac-on-stick

Live Linux disributions becoming more popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveDistro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LiveDistros

Dual booting, bootloaders and the master boot record of devices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LILO_%28boot_loader%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_booting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record

Suggestion 5: Fedora's possible feature of switching to a command line-executed programs split screen configuration
In the past, Linux developments have been focusing on improving the Graphical User Interface (GUI) of Linux, so that inexperienced users (that do not know how to use the command line) may use Linux easier. However, this implementing of the extra subroutines needed to recognise mouse control has had an adverse effect on the systems speed and performanence. Also, besides making the system slower, one wonders why such mouse control needs to implemented anyhow as if is also the cause of 2 additional disadvantages. These are

the unpracticality of using a mouse when on the road (e.g. with a portable computer, or in crammed/busy environments as with public computers at airports, libraries, subways, ..)

the slower speed at which you can operate a computer with a mouse versus with the command line, via keyboard (e.g. to perform the action of manually clicking the mouse, and not just the reduced speed of the computer)

As such, it may be better to include the option of controlling Fedora Linux via keyboard, in a split screen configuration. This configuration would be composed at one side of a command-line window (BASH, ...) and on the other side a window with the executed programs (e.g. FireFox-syle browser, OpenOffice-style text-editor, ...). This configuration proposed would make the system speedier and more stable (as the GUI itself or less subroutines in the GUI are needed) and would also still allow a great deal of eye candy. More so, with some extra work, the configuration would also make it possible to make this OS even nicer than any other existing OS as it may allow complete 3D.

Aldough the 3D features proposed may need some more time to implement, the terminal/program configuration can be implemented nearly immediatly and improve Fedora. For the 3D features, some of the coding done by OS's as IRIX and Linux-3D-modifications as Project Looking Glass can be used to create the modification to Fedora.

Finally, I wish to mention that, if you wish to implement the terminal window-program window - split screen configuration (described in the previous letter), a possible simplification of the current command line (BASH) can be implemented. This simplification of commands would allow more users to use this configuration as it would be much easier to learn the commands. Also, the combined terminal window - program window set-up would allow even further simplification. If you decide to implement the split-screen configuration and wishes to also reduce the commands used (simplify the BASH), please contact me for further assistance.

P.S.: As noted, the suggestions on the Linux-distro above can be supplied as a optional packet with Fedora, leaving the user the liberty of installing it -or not-. As such, Fedora may still be controlled by mouse for those people that really don't want to change the way how they control their computers.

More information: Graphical User Interfaces (GUI)'s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface#Graphical_user_interfaces_compared_to_command_line_interfaces Goobuntu (Google Linux distribution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu

IRIX (Unix distribution with 3D functionality) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irix Project Looking Glass (3D Modification for Linux) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass

Compiz (3D Modification for Linux) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz

Croquet Project (3D Modification for Linux) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project

Suggestion 6: Inclusion of a scaled-down virusscanner, and other software
There is a number of extra software that may be included with Linux-distro's. This includes programs as Sunbird, KeePass, the WeatherBug, BOINC (with climate change grid computing software) ..I would also suggest to implement a Linux-only virusscanner (to be used not in continuous and on-access scanning but only shedueled (weekly/monthly). Candidates herefore are Clam Antivirus and OpenAntivirus. In addition to a virusscanner, a open-source defragmentation program should be included.

The browser (eg Firefox) should be standardly equipped with plug ins that allow the clearing of the browsers cache after each session (to negate the effect of the harddisk slowly being clogged with unnecessairy data) and privacy measures/data erases (the plug-in should be able to perform the same tasks as the Wash 'N Go-program) a cookie and spyware sweeper (eg as Avast Ad-aware) the browser itself finally should drop support for the 'autocomplete'-function (to reduce risk of data-loss to third parties and malicious users)

In addition, a calender may be included (eg Mozilla Sunbird), and a program should be included to allow direct ebook-downloads. Such programs are eg Tomeraider and Mobipocket.

Also, text-translation tools should be implemented (eg trough on-line tools as Google Translate or -even better- off-line tools as Apertium). A sentence-based translation device, capable of delivering direct speech translation should also be included, to allow (basic) inmediate translation assistance from the UMPC (still a small, mobile device). Programs able to provide this are eg the new software program, derived from its Phraselator being build by DARPA. More information Clam Antivirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClamAV

OpenAntivirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAntiVirus

Defragmentation utilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defragmentation

Suggestion 7: Use of a better filesystem and X-window Desktop Environment
It is best that instead of the standard filesystem used by most Linux distrubutions (ext3) to opt for a newer and better filesystem as Reiser4, GFS-2, ext4, ...

Also, rather than the standard X-Window Destop Environment (GNOME and KDE) in use by most Linux distributions today, it is best to switch to a different/newer Window Manager. These include Enlightenment, Blackbox, Xfce, ...

More information Comparisation of file systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems Comparisation of X Window Desktop Environments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments

Suggestion 8: Support for speech recognition and touchscreen
Speech recognition and the use of a touchscreen might be made standardly supported. This may allow tablet pc's or XO-1 PC's of being made smaller as no more mouse or keyboard is needed (taking up a massive amount of space). Rather than this, the speech recognition (along with a headset) may be used for writing letters, ...

More information Ultra Mobile PC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Mobile_PC Tablet pc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC

Speech recognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_recognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturallySpeaking

Suggestion 9: Cooperation with other companies and use of Google Services
In order to achieve the more or less complicated suggestions/tasks layed out here, it may be helpful to cooperate with Google, Canonical Ltd. As Google has many useful services for the developing world (eg Google Maps/Earth for GPS navigation, Google Mail for emailing, Google Docs, ...) a cooperation with them seems logical. Also, Canonical is already developing Goobuntu (for Google Ubuntu) in cooperation with Google; as some features of this Linux distribution may be copied for use in Linux, cooperation with them too would prove beneficial. Finally, Canonical also has a cooperation with Dell which would finish the cycle of creating a powerful alliance against companies now working together solely in the intrest of profits.

Such lucrative alliances by other companies are for example Microsoft and Novell aswell as SUSE Linux which have recently promised to work together. This event will surely put stress on Linux companies operating on their own and at the moment; especially in the intrest of bridging the digital divide, it may be best to form open-source/humanitarian linux companies-alliances.

Canonical and Google working together http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu

Goobuntu being installed on Dell computers http://digg.com/linux_unix/Goobuntu_is_coming_

Microsoft and Novell and SUSE working together http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/ http://www.novell.com/linux/

Suggestion 10: software for GPS-tracking via WiMax and other internet connections
A deamon should be integrated for automatic GPS/Galileo coordinate uploading. This should be automated in the deamon by the regular GPS-unit within the device. GPS/Galileo coordinate uploading needs to be done automatic to a central online database whenever a WiMax connection with enabled internet-sharing is detected (so no GPS-push tracker). This is useful to know the general whereabouts of any a person's GPS-connected portable computer. RFID-monitoring of people (via RFID implant) on the same method should also be in place next to this system. This then also allows to see possible thefts of the portable computer. Also, GPS-position broadcasting should also be done via WiMax to all WiFi receivers in the location (in encrypted form). The latter is primarily to indicate your coordinates for friends (eg especially useful for specific jobs where friends are always within a few kilometers). Also, whenever internet-connection is made via ethernet or satellite internet, the coordinates can be automatically uploaded. The deamon should include encrypted transmission, to ensure that the owners of free internet access points cannot read the information.

Suggestion 11: adaptable health/activity
Supplemental information on a person's current health or activity status should be able to be given. This can then be combined with the GPS tracking of a person noted above via eg a program as Google Earth. This supplemental information is especially useful for certain jobs (eg hazardous outdoor jobs as construction,...).

Suggestion 12:VoIP program
A VoIP-program allowing VoIP over WiFi/WiMax, aswell as accepting incoming phone calls and allowing outgoing one (both to regular telephones/GSM's as computers should be added. Candidates are Skype, or possibly X-lite, GnomeMeeting, Kphone or Ekiga. See this site.

A plug-in should also be created for the program, to allow automatic calling to people by issuing the command "call personname" trough the microphone.

Suggestion 13: Restricted user permissions
The user permissions should be heavily restricted. More precisely, there should be 2 types of users: regular users and 1 user with superuser permissions. Regular users should only be given write permission in their own document folder (called XXX's documents; XXX standing for user name). The rest of the hard drive is to be read-only for regular users; however they should still be able to see the whole hierarchy of the drive; not being restricted to only see their own folder. The superuser however is to be given read and write permission for the whole drive. This effectively eliminates the ability of regular users to corrupt the system by downloading and/or executing files & programs. If there is a necessity to update the system, install certain new software or files, the superuser (or computer administrator) can perform these tasks. In UMPC's (which are effectively used only by 1 person), this division of user permissions may seem unnecessairy; however it will eliminate the corruption of the system nonetheless. This is possible if the user always logs in as a regular user for doing daily use; when he wishes to (or when the user unknowingly downloads something) he will receive an error telling that nothing can be written to the system. This will notify or remind the user that he should not download the file (in certain cases; eg the download of an e-book, ... he may then also decide to log in as superuser and download the file for this single occasion).

Suggestion 14: support of battery-less motherboards
In order to allow the use of battery-less motherboards, which rely on a very small (ie 128-512kb large) solid state drive (SSD) to save the motherboard settings on, an additional change to the OS needs to be foreseen. This change is the immediate synchronization of the clock shown in the OS with a time server. Support can also be added to write the current date to the small SSD after every synchronization with the time server. As a synchronization can only be done when an internet connection is established, the date will not be correct at every startup, but should nevertheless be close to it. The time will always be off, untill the time has been synchronized after booting the computer, this latter however is generally of less importance and the benefit of not having a battery on the motherboard justifies this.

title: Linux adaptations for UMPC design


text:
User talk:JWSchmidt/Review

learning exercise. Explore how this edit constitutes poisoning the well.--JWSchmidt 08:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you're responding, JWSchmidt. I definitely think you deserve the opportunity to give "your side" in every case. The Jade Knight 09:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. --JWSchmidt 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:JWSchmidt/Review