text:
Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Requests relating to Moulton

Notification of expectation of future trouble
User talk:SB Johnny WAS 4.250 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Brainstorming&diff=293242&oldid=293241 And it starts. I removed this trolling] WAS 4.250 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the score: WAS 4.250 and Moulton are using Wikiversity to continue their feud with certain Wikipedians by adding links to this project to pages maintained by Moulton that out particular Wikipedians. Moulton was indef banned from Wikipedia for doing this, now he's here. The pages that out Wikipedias are all found at the following domains where Moulton is a contributor: http://aggieblue.blogspot.com, "moultonlava" (link removed), http://blog.wikipediareview.com, http://www..wikipediareview.com. I'm simply trying to delete links that out Wikipedia editors Moulton, supported by WAS 4.250, have been feuding with. Moulton was kicked off Wikipedia, then locked out of his user talk page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton for outing a particular Wikipedia editor, and now he's doing it here. Administrators reading this should contact Cary Bass at the Foundation, he's aware of this situation and can fill you in. Centaur of attention 21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not have a feud with anyone. And these kinds of personal attacks used here to further a years long war over "badsites" is inappropriate. The badsites policy was defeated at wikipedia and is not a policy here. WAS 4.250 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * All Foundation projects have as a fundamental policy not tolerating contributors who reveal the real names or employers of contributors against their wishes. Centaur of attention 21:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The Foundation does indeed have a privacy policy. Adding a link to a learning resource at wikiversity is not in violation of that policy. WAS 4.250 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding links to pages that "out" Wikipedians is a violation of that policy. Centaur of attention 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm fairly familiar with that policy, and don't see what it has to do with external links. Much to my chagrin just as much as to yours, we really don't have a lot of control over what people say and do on external websites. Your campaign of removing links only serves to make those links more pertinent... again (and again and again), please just let things progress, and let the Wikiversity community be the judge of what's appropriate. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if Centaur of attention is happy to advertise those cited URLs here, and blue link them in a high-profile complaint, then he hardly can complain when others similarly reference those same resources (perhaps with slightly different interpretative characterizations of what may be found in them). —Moulton 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Slow down and start from the beginning, please
All the first reports above dive into this issue at a "late-in-the-game" stage. Please slow down and start from the beginning. Firstly, please don't use jargon such as "to out a Wikipedian"; instead, say "to breach privacy policy by revealing true identity without consent". Secondly, please link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy every time you say "privacy policy" and tell us precisely which section applies here (I was reading it just now and it wasn't obvious to me). Thirdly, if you say someone was banned or if you make other allegations about breaches of policy on other projects, please provide more in the way of supporting links, so that we can reconstruct this. I've tried some of your links, but it's difficult for someone unfamiliar with this to see what's going on. Finally, if you say "contact Cary Bass at the Foundation", please say how! Sorry to be thick, but this is an out-of-the-way neck-of-the-woods here. --McCormack 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * This is a battle over censoring facts related to the mis-management of the English language Wikipedia project and "outing" is a mere tactic to further the ends of that attempt to censor. Everyone, or almost everyone, at the Foundation level is in favor of proper ethical management of all Wikimedia projects, including the English language Wikipedia, so I have every reason to believe that whoever is behind this censorship attempt will fail in their attempts. And no, I really don't know who is behind this. except perhaps those who supported the failed badsites policy proposal at Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikiversity is not a battleground, nor is it Valley Forge. Please concentrate on creating learning resources, and fight the battles elsewhere. --SB_Johnny | talk 04:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The WMF Privacy Policy has to do with disclosure to third parties of the IP addresses of those establishing TCP/IP sessions with WMF servers. Users who are not logged in automatically have their IP addresses disclosed, as in this relevant example. Matching such IP addresses to nicknames is often trivial, and occasionally an interesting puzzle that anyone can undertake to solve.

Now, for those who care to parse the meaning of the applicable WMF Privacy Policy, here is the relevant section:

Policy on release of data derived from page logs

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:

 * 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
 * 2. With permission of the affected user
 * 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
 * 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
 * 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
 * 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

As to whether Centaur of attention meets the definition of a vandal, I will leave that judgment to the responsible custodians here.

Moulton 12:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Inappropriate and counterproductive conjectures about IP/account relationships removed: please leave that sort of thing to the Checkusers. Again, I'm rather familiar with the privacy policy, and you are correct: it doesn't mention linking to blogs etc. that "out" users. That doesn't mean you should do it, however, and it's frankly counterproductive to do so. We are not going to be hosting your battles, but we are more than happy to host your learning resource. Please try to separate the wheat from the chaff, and work on content, rather than strategy. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Put another way, think of this as a sanctuary, where the people don't really care where you or anyone else came from, why you or they are here, or what your or their history is, but where the people expect everyone to find way to get along and everyone is expected to leave any baggage from their life before the sanctuary behind or out of it, and where everyone gets a fresh start and another chance. So please let this go and concentrate on your work at Wikiversity, and not on what has lead you here. Like a sanctuary, if someone causes trouble because of their unwillingness to let go of the past, then the people of the sanctuary may have no choice but to ask the person to leave. Your fight is not with us, nor does your fight belong on Wikiversity. Fights are unproductive and Wikiversity is all about trying to be productive. At this time I believe no action will be taken, and continuing this discussion is just continuing something from a past that Wikiversity is not aware of nor in all probability cares to know about. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

External links policy?
I'm getting rather overwhelmed by my inbox lately, and I think we might want to have a discussion about external links before things get out of hand and/or taken out of our hands. Some of the email is quite disturbing.

Aside from spamming, there appear to be links that are objectionable in other ways. I think the best way to go about it would to have some sort of review process, so that if a link is felt to be objectionable, we can put a "temporary bar" on it, and bring it to some sort of discussion board comprised of the custodians.

When someone objects to a link, they bring it to the board. The person who added the link can give an explanation of why the link is important, educational, etc. The person objecting can say why it's objectionable. Then the custodians can weigh the arguments and come up with a consensus.

I don't think it's any problem having only custodians consensing... if someone's interested in taking part and are a trusted user, they can always grab themselves a mentor and join in. --SB_Johnny talk 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Good idea. WAS 4.250 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's a good idea, and I'd like to help you, Johnny, in your workload. :-) However, why not keep this an open forum - and allow a custodian/bureaucrat to decipher consensus? Cormaggio talk 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I think it would be better to keep the conversations quiet ("ignore the men and women behind those curtains!"), because some of the links being discussed may attract a different kind of attention than we'd ideally like to have. See commons:Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll, which grew out of commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SB Johnny (checkuser)/Bureaucrats discussion, which in turn grew out of commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SB Johnny (checkuser). My RfCheck on commons ended up being mostly about what I do on Wikiversity, and several of those parties are busily scrutinizing us to this day. For that reason, I'd prefer to limit it to only established wikiversitans with maintenance experience on the main discussion page, leaving the talk page open for anyone else who wants to comment. The nice thing is that pretty much any "established user" on wv ends up becoming a custodian, or could become one within minutes if they wanted to (and let's keep it that way, please). I also think that we wouldn't need any deciphering with a custodian discussion: there were just as many people in awe of our community as there were people scoffing at it on that RfCheck, and they have good reason to feel that way. We are, needless to say, awesome :-). --SB_Johnny talk 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This process seems reasonable to me. I suggest erring on the side of caution... remove links brought for consideration in good faith until a determination is made. It's a wiki and there is no deadline so if in the end it is decided they can remain, they can at that time be restored. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Lar. WAS 4.250 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a statement about linking to sources of personal information at Privacy policy. --JWSchmidt 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Publishing email addresses without consent
Please see and some of the history of that page. There has been a bit of an edit war. The anon doesn't have the most civil edit summaries but I am not sure I agree with Moulton that publishing email addresses of those he corresponds with is appropriate. I brought this up in IRC on #wikiversity-en and was advised to bring this here. To be explicit, while I make a spambot blocked version of my email known, I do not give permission for its republishing in non encoded form. I know some of the emails there are of people who do not publish their emails at all. It was said in IRC that perhaps each person needs to turn up here and ask that their addy not be published. I think rather than explicit permission should be required instead. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I couldn't find a place why Moulton finds it is important to publish the emails: Moulton: wouldn't only names or only initials or as it is now: no name and email also be sufficient ? If not, the more info you can provide about the why the better people can understand the actions.
 * I couldn't find on direct search with the given email two mentioned users/persons - so here also this should be considered to not list them (when I modified the email - e.g. leave out the @ - the result is not the same).
 * Since Moulton has the email adresses he can ask them if they want it published, so the users can make an edit to show this (that would probably be less effort than playing the revert-game and answering here :-) ). If you do not want to send them an email, I could do this for you. What do you say ? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 04:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The names and e-mail addresses of the recipients are not particularly important. They can be redacted without loss of value to the posting.  I'll let others decide how the recipients should be identified (if at all).  Probably their on-wiki avatar names could be substituted, if it's important to identify who received it.   —Moulton 05:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense should have led you to err on the side of redacting them in the first place. Why didn't you do that? They are now in the edit history for all to see. I suggest that the entire sequence be oversighted. Further, I suggest serious consideration be given to clarifying local policy to note that publishing email addresses without permission from the email address owner be considered a privacy violation, absent some special, case specific, justification otherwise. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lar. WAS 4.250 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did redact them on meta, as soon as I read your comments about the issue.  —Moulton 14:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to Lar: they're not in the WV edit histories now (I did an "admin oversight")... I don't have tools on meta though. --SB_Johnny talk 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done likewise on Meta. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Just for the record, the removal of those diffs here was with Moulton's expressed consent, so this request can be condidered closed by full consensus. --SB_Johnny talk 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While Lar's comparable oversight on Meta was undertaken without first seeking consent, it's clear that he understood from my disclosure above that he did not need to do so. However, for reasons not entirely clear to me, he does not quite consider the issue closed.  —Moulton 06:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The proximate cause of the request has been removed, yes. But I'm asking for policy clarification. Or a pointer to where existing policy makes a statement about this. So, not closed yet, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It could perhaps fall within Privacy policy, which is proposed. Emesee 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Lar is not fully satisfied, I propose some kind of open forum hearing, discussion, or case study so that we can all come to a common understanding of both the concerns and the appropriate remedies in the event of a breach of policy (or similar future breach of etiquette in the absence of an express policy). —Moulton 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Or on the other hand someone could ask for clarification on what the WMF privacy policy is, or just read it. You can be more private if you want, but not less. Email addresses, posted without permission, are private. Moulton violated privacy and now wants to make a big drama out of investigating all the ramifications, instead of just saying he goofed and he's sorry. Seems like rather a waste of time and effort to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The WMF Privacy Policy says this about E-mail:

E-mail

You may provide your e-mail address in your Preferences and enable other logged-in users to send email to you through the wiki. Your address will not be revealed to them unless you respond, or possibly if the email bounces. The email address may be used by the Wikimedia Foundation to communicate with users on a wider scale.
 * As I read that, it's mute on the issue of ordinary users publishing E-Mail addresses that users have revealed. As far as I'm concerned, it was between me and Alison, as she was the only one who said that her E-Mail address was not for public consumption.
 * Moulton 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I say the following as a legitimate curiosity. I would be interested to know if Moulton has that same view of the situation. Emesee 00:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the same view as Lar, because I don't go to the same church as Lar. Lar believes in the binary dichotomy of the Hammurabist school of thought, distinguishing right from wrong via an anachronistic Heaviside Switch Function.  I adopt the functionalist view that there is a continuum, with a continuously differentiable error function possessing a gradient.  In theological terms, the notion of a gradient maps into the concept of grace.  To my mind, Lar's notion is graceless, which is why it falls short of my concept of best ethical practices for recovering from a lamentable misadventure.  Neither of us accepts the other's concept of a functional regulatory model.  —Moulton 02:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm not going to theorize as to why we all see matters differently at this moment, I will say that I hope we can all be civil, respectful, polite, and considerate in our conversations and interactions here, and move forward in collaboratively furthering each of our own bases of knowledge here at Wikiversity in a constructive manner. Emesee 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The view that I am advancing is based on modern analytical systems thinking. It's a tad mathematical, but not all that hard to grasp, even for those who are not particularly fond of mathematics.  —Moulton 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Lar, I cannot find anything one the wikimedia foundation policy page which has anything to do with this specific topic of publishing email addresses. If anything, it indicates that you use your email at your own risk. I would like to see you explain how Moulton violated privacy policies.
 * However, since people don't like to be spammed, we usually don't publish email addresses on wikiversity. Moulton should have used some common sense in these matters, and could have been more careful from the beginning.  I would say this is more a matter of civillity than privacy. Hillgentleman|Talk 04:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said to Lar in e-mail, common sense is often in short supply in Wikiland. Had the IP poster from the City of Brotherly Love said why he was removing the content, I would have concurred with him on the point that Lar and Alison eventually raised to my attention.  But he employed some choice epithets rather than provide a valid objection to including the full e-mail addresses.  I note that on Foundation-l, they partially redact them to confound the scrapers. —Moulton 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are drifting away again. Moulton realized hopefully now it is better not to publish the emails (also to use time for better things than revert-games) and now it is about a better policy or not.
 * /me sees always that people from larger projects want a policy here and there. :-( Let's discuss this at Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy. I will announce that page proposal also in the Colloquium. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are personal attacks unsupported by any evidence allowed?
Are personal attacks unsupported by any evidence allowed? The claim that "The founders of this project have serious behavioral issues at Wikipedia, one is banned, the other has a long history as a malcontent and enabler of troublemakers, and they skipped from project to project to found this project." at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Ethics/Feedback_1&diff=307644&oldid=303481 and User:Centaur of attention is untrue. I have a long history of positive useful contributions at Wikipedia. Being unjustly attacked at two WikiMedia projects does not constitute skipping from project to project. ("If being arrested was evidence of having committed a crime, we would not need trials.") The unjust attacks are used as evidence of bad behavior. This is another example of the kind of unethical behavior that the Ethics project seeks to highlight and this person's actions appear to try to hide. WAS 4.250 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I truly believe at this point Wikimedia community needs awareness to what exactly constitutes a personal attack. I even have evidence to offer where some "good standing Wikipedians" will classify almost anything as a personal attack. It happened to me when I tried to make a defense to the sudden avalanche of attacks against me at Wikipedia orchestrated by an infamous Wikipedian; here is the example, to be weighed in all highly recommended fairness of what constitutes personal attacks, of attempted redactions orchestrated by such infamous Wikipedian for reason of her own long time hyperbolic revenge over the argument she made that I was "confused" and a "troll" for even having a family tree that shows *I might* be a decedent of the d'Arc family (for which she continued to exploit, or try to "out" me, in every way possible until I was completely "gone"). With SB_Johnny's RfCU on Commons, you can see why she got upset that the orchestrated block on Wikipedia had it limits where it didn't automatically set a status quo for the rest of Wikimedia. That kind of "expectations" in the status quo on other Wikimedia projects is something really interesting to consider because you here the argument that a project at Wikiversity should not have any affect over Wikipedia, but this "status quo," which would mean Wikipedia has authoritarian role over Wikiversity, should? Hmmmm. I offered several times to fax or show my family tree, but given that such proof would immediately prove accusations of me being a "troll" as a complete lie (no matter how true of what is stated in the document about my family -- the truth is it exists). That offer was never taken, but I remain accused and so do others. I seriously doubt such "status quo" should be upheld by witch-hunt vengeance. What ever happens about the "outing" accusations that Centaur of Attention makes on his or her user page, please consider the "outing" link I provided early, which shows exactly what "outing" means -- to get someone's reputation ruined and/or to disassociate them from a community. (note: I rather focus on how to improve the software to help in this ethical measures -- but I'm requesting fairness for fairness, not eye for eye, before such "status quo" becomes evil.) Dzonatas 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The page in question is the user page of a recent registrant which has been the subject of some controversy as to the most appropriate way to handle it. Since I take exception to the unfounded and unsupported claims on the referenced user page, I am requesting that custodial admins recommend a suitable conflict resolution method, consistent with established policies.  My own preference is for something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Process, if that is at all possible.  —Moulton 23:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that's a feedback page, so I think we need to allow a bit of leeway. Perhaps a narrative explaining how the project found its way to WV would be in order? One idea would be to add a field to the template to link to where efforts have been made to answer criticisms in the project space (not talk pages, but content that fills a gap or fixes a problem). --SB_Johnny talk 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * There is a very brief synopsis of the genesis of the ethics learning project, that directly traces the route by which the project found its way from Moulton's Talk Page on English Wikipedia to Wikiversity, by way of Meta-Wiki. It's short enough that I'll just reproduce it here.

Genesis of this Project

In the wake of Majorly's uncongeniality on Meta-Wiki, WAS 4.250 initiated this learning project on Wikiversity.

See also:
 * User_talk:Lar#Perplexed.
 * Meta:Babel#Locking of Moulton's talk page
 * User_talk:WAS_4.250#Harrumph.
 * User_talk:Moulton/MetaArchive

The issues that WAS and I were discussing on Meta-Wiki trace back to an earlier dialogue on the English Wikipedia.

Moulton 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the participants of this project need to commit to civil, honest, reflective and respectful contributions. I'm disturbed by some of the comments and editing patterns I've observed over the last month or so. Cormaggio talk 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ditto WAS 4.250 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy/procedure learning project
I hope the well-respected custodians can lead by example in joining this project. This is an experimental project with a view to repeating it for all policies and procedures. Please see here, here, here, here and here for details. I have noticed, through my own dealings with custodians, that you are reasonable people and that you want the very best for this community. This is an experimental method for reviewing the functionability of policies and procedures and I believe it cannot progress without your participation. If you feel it won't work, let's try anyway. Let's learn by doing. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could summarise in more detail here the goals and the proposed methods - I haven't been to the links you suggest yet, but they look like they go to user talk pages, so some gathering of your ideas into a different place e.g., in the Wikiversity: namespace or here perhaps might be a way to collate and gather comment. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My ideas are here. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Salmon_of_Doubt and User:Moulton
Is there anything that can be done to prevent Moulton from endlessly adding personal attacks to my talk page? Salmon of Doubt 13:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) And that he cease impersonating other contributors. Salmon of Doubt 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I propose we enter into a mutually agreeable Social Contract, setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement? Would that be agreeable to you? —Moulton 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * No. You will cease your personal attacks and impersonation of other users immediately. Salmon of Doubt 13:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Did you not summon me there? —Moulton 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You will cease your personal attacks and impersonation of other users immediately. Salmon of Doubt 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * What is your evidence and reasoning to support your most curious and remarkable allegations? —Moulton 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now he is removing my comments from my talk page -. Salmon of Doubt 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Eh? I don't see what's missing. Can you identify the specific comment that allegedly vanished into the mist?  —Moulton 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Be more careful with your blind reverting. Additionally, you are not "Gastrin Bombesin," a registered Wikiversity account - if you are, please log into that account and confirm such. Salmon of Doubt 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I still don't see the evidence to support your various claims. With regard to my alternate avatar names here, please see this disclosure on my talk page. —Moulton 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You removed my 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC) comment in your blind reverting. Salmon of Doubt 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Have I since corrected my error? —Moulton 14:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is part of a drama enacted, unwittingly perhaps, by Salmon_of_Doubt and Moulton, playing themselves and cast to type, entitled Conflict resolution via punishment vs. tit-for tat. Take your bows gentlemen for that learning resource. I think you have both demonstrated the poor qualities of both strategies for the purpose of conflict resolution. WAS 4.250 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The drama may or may not be unwitting on the part of other thespians engaged in the liminal social drama. Given the role that Salmon of Doubt has cast for himself, he is entitled to play out the sketch to its ultimate conclusion.  Whether that conclusion will be enlightenment is not for me to predict.  After all, midwifing the epiphany was hard, even for Socrates, Beckett, and Galileo.  And they were dealing with extremely bright antagonists by the standards of their day.  —Moulton 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Salmon of Doubt: I'm asking Moulton to take a break from his effort to educate you (please see User talk:Moulton). However, please remember what it says on your user page, "This editor will respond to all questions about the ethical caliber of their contributions on their talk page". If Moulton asks you a question in a way that you think is rude and insensitive, I hope you can find a way to redact the incivil part, remind Moulton to be civil and then answer the question. I think we can all find ways to edit together, but a scholarly investigation sometimes involves asking pointed questions. A challenging question is not really a personal attack, it can be an opportunity to learn....if you do not ignore it. --JWSchmidt 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I made the restriction (1,2) "official" for a week... neither user may edit the other's user talk or case study. Cooling off and getting to work is a good thing. --SB_Johnny talk 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * And I am frankly disappointed, dispirited, and chagrined that you have fired up the reprehensible machinery of Hammurabi and Machiavelli, which we both know to be abhorrent to our respective religious convictions, as well as strongly contra-indicated by well-documented scholarly studies. —Moulton 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Removing minor privileges granted you for free on a website not owned by you and not owned by the public for purposes consistent with the goals of the organization that owns those resources is entirely ethical. WAS 4.250 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance

Perhaps there is none more esteemed among modern English-speaking Ethicists than the late John Rawls. He is especially known for his notion of the Veil of Ignorance in the Philosophy of Ethics.

The Veil of Ignorance corresponds to the notion that any Universal Principle of Ethics must be the same for all players. If one were to trade places with any other player, the same Ethical Principle must still apply. Note that Einstein used the same reasoning when he worked out the Theory of Relativity. Einstein reasoned that the Laws of Nature must be the same for all observers. If two observers trade places, they should not swap out their proposed Laws of Nature for a new set keyed, to a different vantage point. Hillel expressed the same idea in the Golden Rule. His version said, "That which is abhorrent to yourself, do not visit upon your fellow Wikipedian. That is the whole of the Ethical Law. All the rest is talk-page commentary." This precept is known as "Indifference to Role Reversal" and applies equally to Einstein's thinking, Hillel's thinking, and the Twentieth Century thinking of John Rawls. Another name for this precept is The Symmetry Principle. If there is an asymmetry present, there is something lopsided in the applicable ethics. In the presence of an asymmetry or imbalance, there will arise a restoring force that will manifest as drama (or karma) to those embedded within an unfair system.
 * Moulton 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The practice of ethics does not require we abandon the notion of ownership. Do I have all the same rights as you with regard to living in your condo? Can I come over and use your condo any way I please? No. I can not. The resources at Wikiversity are set up to promote the Foundation's mission and restrictions on your rights here that are needed to effect that mission are ethical. WAS 4.250 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would like to request that you that extend that to the end of September, if you would. Thanks. WAS 4.250 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would like to request that you re-examine the ethics of descending the a rung on Kohlberg Ladder and retreating on the Gilligan Axis in the unhappy direction of antipathy rather than advancing toward empathy. —Moulton 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would like to request that you re-examine the ethics of tit-for-tat as a conflict resolution method dressed up as a drama caused by someone else. WAS 4.250 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would request that you resign from the Ethics Project. I am not interested in partnering with a hypocrite who does not believe in or practice the Fundamentals of Ethics.  —Moulton 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * What evidence and logic do you have to support your charge of "hypocrite"? WAS 4.250 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You have embraced and adopted practices anathema to a belief in the foundation principles of ethics. You have embraced and adopted reactionary and retrograde levels on the Kohlberg Ladder, and you have adopted a stance of antipathy that I find utterly devasting in the founding partner on the Ethics Project.  —Moulton 05:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * WAS_4.250 and JWSchmidt have made some excellent points - I'd encourage Moulton and Salmon_of_Doubt to take heed of them, and attempt to turn this conflict into a genuine, self-reflexive learning experience. The blame game is not working. Cormaggio talk 11:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Preamble: The English Wikipedia ArbCom is about ready to reveal their decision in the FM-SV-C68 case...

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Here is today's Colloquium Exercise...

Moulton 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Those questions are answered at Talk:Wikimedia Ethics. WAS 4.250 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Attack pages
The following two pages are nothing more than attack pages set up under the pretense of analysis. They were created and are being maintained by Moulton and Privatemusings, using the admins they blame for running them off Wikipedia as subject for "case studies" of "admin abuse." They are using these pages to create the impression that certain admins (JayJG, FeloniousMonk) are the troublemakers and spread that as a meme. In other words, they are slandering JayJG, FeloniousMonk to settle old scores. This is an abuse of Wikiversity and needs to stop. I've deleted the content at these pages and they should be protected from being restored or recreated.

Centaur of attention 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics
 * Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/1

 * I think Moulton's rhetoric needs to be toned down quite a bit, but it seems to me that Privatemusings has made every effort to be fair in presenting his experience as a case study. I don't see how Privatemusings could be interpreted as attacking anyone. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't you and Privatemusings go way back at WikipediaReview? There's no reason why Privatemusings can't make his point without mentioning names and using a hypothetical example rather than using the one admin he resents the most. His reasoning for selecting and focusing on JayJG is apparent to anyone who know their history and that Privatemusings has long held a grudge against JayJG. Centaur of attention 20:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Centaur of attention, "There's no reason why Privatemusings can't make his point without mentioning names and using a hypothetical example " -  The exercise is called a case study because it is for studying cases.  In the very beginning, the participants of the learning project claimed that there existed many problems in wikipedia without providing much evidence.  I was one of them who asked for the examination of a few simple concrete cases to illustrate what they were talking about.  It is only unfortunate that the participants are not interested in beginning with simple cases of old and are more interested in the present cases.   Hypothetical cases are good in themselves, and indeed there are such exercises, but they do not serve the same purposes;  and limiting ourselves to use hypothetical case to study the phenomena is not serious scholarship. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Can't say I "go way back" with anyone at Wikipedia Review, as I've never been particularly active there, but what would that have to do with anything anyway? Nevertheless, I don't see where Privatmusings mentioned names, anyway.  The only mention of Jayjg that I found was in Moulton's case study. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: User talk:Centaur of attention, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The corrupt practices delineated in those case studies need to be examined by many more impartial observers. So far, JWSchmidt and Ottava Rima have constructed their own independent studies, which may be compared to the ones I crafted.  Each of us is prepared to answer questions on the cases we prepared.  If anyone thinks an element of the case is unsubstantiated, they are welcome to request a presentation of evidence and reasoning to support any such element.  —Moulton 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Any particular reason this attack page, full of names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand? KillerChihuahua 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Take a good long look at Deletion requests. In particular you may want to look at the case of Albanian sea port history there and the edits surrounding it.  Having looked at that, you tell me how you think you're going to get that page deleted when this page was kept (and especially considering the manner in which it was gotten kept).  The Jade Knight 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh for crying out loud. Thanks, JK, that explains so much better than any discussion could. I'll just leave the asylum to the inmates, then - btw, you seem sane, good luck with the attempts to inject reality here. KillerChihuahua 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * KillerChihuahua, you mentioned "hurtful and distressing falsehood" in a way to constitute an attack page. With that reasoning, I can claim that Wikipedia is an attack site against me for the messages it left on my page and in log files. I never deserved that treatment. Your view may vary, but I think we have to consider where a lot of this mess started. Ethical studies is obviously not a topic that would exist on Wikipedia, as it would contain original research. Somehow, the "original research" is being mis-transposed to carelessly as "an attack-site." You either have the option to participate or not. Given your comment about "asylum," I'm sure you just categorized many more people here than you know with that certain hurtful and distressing falsehood. Dzonatas 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * KillerChihuahua: a scholarly exploration of editing at Wikipedia is an "attack"? Please explain. "names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood" <-- if there is something on that page that you do not agree with, feel free to join the research project and provide your perspective. Someone might get the idea that your charges, offered here without any supporting evidence, is an attack....or an attempted cover-up. "there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand" <-- not quite proper grammar, but true. --JWSchmidt 13:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess KillerChihuahua is another (or just the latest instantiation of the same one?) Wikipedia scholar who comes here to make charges and then, when challenged to provide evidence to support those charges, just says "I want a pony". New learning project: Wikiversity participants who think JWSchmidt is a troll and feel that calling him a troll improves the learning environment of Wikiversity (Wikiversity participants who think JWSchmidt is a troll and feel that calling him a troll improves the learning environment of Wikiversity/And we are tired of people who make personal attacks!). --JWSchmidt 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I would join that group. :D But on other things, perhaps we need a three month time out where everyone on both sides participates in my close reading project of simple passages from literature with responses/answering questions. Ottava Rima 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you happen to particularly enjoy listening to the music of Warren Zevon, by chance? Or how about Adam Faith? The Jade Knight 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua
Any particular reason this attack page, full of names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand? KillerChihuahua 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please identify specific passages in that page which you claim to be inaccurate, and either provide evidence and analysis to refute the passage in question, or ask for the author to defend the passage with evidence and reasoning. Is the sole issue the question of whether or not the 14 allied editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design who certified the RfC against me constitute a "Cabal"? —Moulton 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note
A small note to those who believe that there are "attack pages" by Moulton et al. - I created this originally as a way to try and show how they could craft an argument without actually attacking individuals or dragging up people unfairly. It focuses on the ethical concepts without blaming or criticizing. My way of crafting it has come under attack by Salmon of Doubt for being biased, and I made a note at the top to admit that I see the term "Creationist" or "Intelligent Design" as a black mark and something I would not like to be a part of. However, my intention was not to create the perfect page to talk about the issue, but to show Moulton and JWSchmidt a way to moderate their approach to emphasis discussion and minimize possible offense. All are welcome to participate, or to recommend how to recraft certain aspects. Ottava Rima 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Which I did see, and thought precisely what you have stated: this is how to address issues without attacking individuals. KillerChihuahua 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you take issue with any of the analysis or commentary in Ottava Rima's investigation? —Moulton 18:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Moulton, thats a little rude. Killer Chihuahua, instead, let me welcome you to participate on that page. It should be known that it was crafted from Moulton's perspective in mind (as it is a guide for his argument). You are also welcome to create a similar page that analysis the situation differently, and we could form a cross talk between the two, weighing the pros and cons of each view, the individual perspectives, etc. I think it would be healthy for Moulton to participate in a discussion as such in which he is partially removed (at least emotionally) and is put into a role of talking about the concepts and not the individuals. Ottava Rima 14:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I've been seeking to engage my detractors for a year now in a functional conflict resolution process, in lieu of the sham charades they've long been perpetrating at en:WP.  —Moulton 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Cormaggio/Moulton's block

This page is to document the events leading up to Moulton's block from Wikiversity and the wikiversity-en IRC channel. I also intend to give my own reflections on the matter. However, please do add to the substance of the "cases", as well as adding comments. Cormaggio talk 09:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's block from Wikiversity
On 14th September 2008, User:Jimbo Wales blocked User:Moulton from Wikiversity for "incivility", adding a note on the Colloquium.

Moulton's activity
Moulton has been blocked several times from editing Wikipedia, which he sees as unjustified. He has maintained some information about the block, and on the events leading up to it, on his Wikipedia talk page. In July 2008, User:Moulton and User:WAS_4.250 created a project on Wikiversity to explore the ethical management of the English Wikipedia.

Moulton's practice of publishing details of wiki editors' real names, jobs, and email addresses (ie 'outing'), was brought into question early on - during posts to the foundation-l , and on his talk page, eg this, this, and this thread.

After an edit war with Salmon_of_Doubt on the "Case Studies" page (see page history), and another on Salmon of Doubt's talk page - adding hostile comments such as this - I (Cormaggio) tried to engage both of them on the talk page, during which I asked Moulton about whether he considered his behaviour was appropriate for a civil environment, or even ethical. I also raised my concerns on his talk page. Moulton repeatedly ducked the question of whether his behaviour was appropriate, saying that he was engaging in a "game of chess" or a "lunatic drama", which he claims was purely a result of Salmon's editing (and not his own).

Moulton was also asked to be more civil and mature by WAS_4.250, cofounder of the ethics project; whereupon Moulton asked WAS_4.250 to leave the ethics project, calling him a "hypocrite".

Moulton continued to make fun of people who criticised him on Wikiversity, including through the use of songs - for example, see from this onwards. But he has reserved his most potent attacks for the people with whom he has fought on Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation - for example, on a thread on his talk page, Moulton asked Was_4.250 to:
 * "..obtain a permanent injunction against IDCab barring them from ever going anywhere near Picard's BLP, the related article on Affective Computing, or Moulton's en:WP User page. I am not asking for any of them to write Picard (or me) an apology, as I don't imagine they are capable of feeling even a tinge remorse for their atrocious and unmitigated travesties under the watchful eye of the cognizant officers of the Wikimedia Foundation."

 * (Note: there is a lot of material here which will be incomprehensible to the uninitiated in all of this. 'IDCab' refers to a group of editors Moulton perceives as forming a 'cabal' around Intelligent Design-related articles on Wikipedia; 'BLP' is a biography of a living person; and 'Picard' is Rosalind Picard, whose Wikipedia article Moulton was working on before his block there.)

Since his block, as before, Moulton has continued to post hostile comments, eg, as well as personal information which has had to be oversighted (see Request_custodian_action/Moulton's_talk_page). For some previous community discussion of his activity, see also Request_custodian_action/Requests_relating_to_Moulton, and there is another review space at Community_Review.

Cormaggio's reflections
I left some early reflections at Learning_from_conflict_and_incivility/Cormaggio.

Comments or questions for Mu301

 * Please respond to each of the issues and questions outlined in Scholarly Peer Review of Managerial Practices Demonstrated in the singular contributions of Jimbo Wales, including all three subthreads in that main thread on Moulton's WV Talk Page. —Montana Mouse 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Please comment on the thesis that an indefinite block without community review amounts to a monarchial Bill of Attainder — an unwise and corrosive governance practice which the Founders expressly deprecated, eschewed, and excluded when they drafted the US Constitution, on the historical insight that such an ill-advised practice is likely to sink any government that adopts and employs it. —Barsoom Tork 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

 * According to the Administrator's noticeboard on Wikipedia he's been permanently banned from that site and other wikimedia sites - what is the situation on this site is he banned completely for being uncivil or is it a temporary ban which the foundation have initiated. DarkMage  09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you know, Wikipedians are not a source of reliable information. Whose testimony are you relying on to propagate the hypothesis that Moulton has been "permanently banned" from Wikipedia?  Have you examined that testimony to see if it's accurate and supported by solid evidence and sound reasoning?  Have you sought evidence to refute or falsify that remarkably popular hypothesis?  Here, for example, is some testimony by another WP admin who is more conscientious in gathering and reporting reliable information:

Just a clarification. Moulton is not, and never has been, banned. Viridae Talk 11:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you discover why that kind of accurate testimony is so hard to find on en:WP?
 * Barsoom Tork 12:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * All blocks can be undone - this is not a Foundation directive; it is an "action by Jimbo". All actions that are not done as a result of a legal concern (eg removing libelous comments), are subject to local community approval. However, in an exceptional situation like this (and Jimbo's "God king" actions are very much the exception), it's best to take a lot of time to consider what's been done, and how we can move forward. Cormaggio talk 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question, though my comment on the Colloquium still applies I'll continue to support the block. DarkMage  10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My own personal opinion (based on private discussions with a number of Wikiversitans) is that Wikiversity is still in development and that it's certainly not large enough to absorb the fractious drama inevitably generated by the "Wikipedia Ethics" project, which, given its current state could not possibly move beyond personal agenda-driven soliliquys. For the Wikiversity remain engaged in it is to risk further alienating the remaining project leaders and will erode any community left.  Moulton has continuously demonstrated that he is only interested in his own ends, achieved only by "outing" people on the Wikipedia project and, quite likely, anyone who wants to disagree with him too vehemently.  No project based on that sort of bullying and fearmongering can possibly succeed. Bastique 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullies and fear-mongers should be indef blocked and not allowed to chase off the rest of us. Both here and at Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had had more arbcom decisions like w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, then this ethics project would never have been needed. WAS 4.250 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Pardon me if I reply here about cases like that and this ambient discussion. I find it peculiar that when someone becomes a sysop it is stated that it should be 'no big deal.' That case shows where one becomes desysoped, so on reciprocal action it is also 'no big deal' to desysop. I'm sure many won't like to hear that as they are forced to consider it. A case like and many others try to make the desysop action a big deal, as if the weight of its remedial solution is enough show of punishment. If one doesn't have these 'no big deal' bits, they tend to get blocked instead of being desysoped for such behavior. It is easy to see the desysop action becomes equal to a get out of jail free card. Since it can be weighted like this, it is hard to say such delineated outcomes for equal cause is does not create a sense of alienation. It does.
 * The only way to solve this I believe is by a technical change. There should be other options besides the admin tools now available. Some maybe have read User:Dzonatas/Ethics_and_MediaWiki and have learned of technical changes that can be done rather than other silly accusations games. I can easily think of tools to take away someone's privilege to link externally. There are ways to take away someone's privilege to change the way their name appears. The are ways to force them where they can only use Harvard references instead of in-line links. There are ways to fine tune what pages are editable, like and allow/deny list. There are ways to limit edits per day. I can go on, but I think it is obvious that it is not just Wikiversity that still is in development. There are avenues yet to be explored. I think it is irresponsible to continue to blame someone or another when there are many options available as technical changes, as it clearly does not tell the truth. As remarkable accomplishments as the software has allowed, the truth is the software still sucks needs major improvement as a civil platform.
 * There was something said in the IRC conversation by Wales. Yes, it got around. It was about the "hug" comment. In a way it sounded as if Wales tried to sincerely sound as if he didn't know what else to do. I'm surprised about that since I can clearly point out technical options that probably wouldn't create such alienation. To further point out, I don't have the time myself to program all these extra options and not be paid for it, as it appears what happened to me on Wikipedia has affected my ability to earn money. When you know I have 4 kids to support, I can testify that Wales's hug is not enough. Maybe I'm just more attuned to seek options and not give up. Dzonatas 16:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's block from IRC
On 15th September 2008, User:Guillom kicked Moulton from the wikiversity-en and wikiversity IRC channels for "repeated incivility, posting logs without permission". This was done on request by several Wikiversity custodians - User:Cormaggio, User:Mu301, and User:SB_Johnny.

General discussion
Is this permanent? --McCormack 09:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. My log says:
 * [9:38pm] guillom set a ban on *!*n=Moulton@*.bos.east.verizon.net.
 * [9:38pm] Moulton was kicked from the chat room by guillom. (repeated incivility, posting logs without permission)
 * I think that may mean a permanent ban (please confirm either way, anyone who is familiar with IRC administration). If it was a permanent ban, I think this may need to be discussed further by the community. Cormaggio talk 09:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a few conditions need to be put on Moulton, and any time he fails to meet them, he is booted from IRC for a small period of time (6 hours?): Don't use the term "Po Mo Theater". Don't call KC a dog or address her in any terms besides her being a human. Be courteous to SB Johnny. Feel free to add some others. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

title: User:Cormaggio/Moulton's block


text:
Wikiversity ethics

Welcome
Thanks for examining this research and learning project! You'll find many links in all the usual places below, and please do feel free to ask questions, make edits, and generally get involved in teaching, learning, and discussing any aspects of what you read.

What is Wikiversity ethics
Ethics is the philosophical and moral structure built around appropriate action. By establishing a set of "core values", or abstract principles that one feels is important to living, humans are able to apply those core values to various aspects of their lives. Some theorists create ethical systems in which they give some values a higher weight than others based on what effects these values are capable of producing.

Wikiversity is a community of humans trying to interact with each other. Each member here is their own individual person, and each member is affected by the overall community in some regard. Thus, Wikiversity has its own ethical system based on agreement between its users and intended for the betterment of the community. This project is intended as an analysis of that system in order to promote understanding of the basic principles of Wikiversity and to promote their good practices.

For this project, there will be three kinds of pages:

 * Analysis and discussion of the core values of Wikiversity.
 * Analysis and discussion of the application of the core values of Wikiversity with emphasis on their impact on both the community as a whole and the emotion/psyche of Wikiversity users.
 * Self writing attempts to craft appropriate messages, responses, essays, and other documents that attempt to conform to these core values.

List of subpages

 * All subpages: special:prefixindex//
 * All talk subpages: special:prefixindex//
 * All recently edited pages: /Dynamic page list/

title: Wikiversity ethics


text: File:Ipk logo.gif

title: File:Ipk logo.gif


text: Category:Class notes

title: Category:Class notes


text: User:Ukexpat

title: User:Ukexpat


text:
Advanced ANOVA/Assessment/General feedback and comments

This page provides general feedback about the ANOVA assignment. Students may also add anonymous or signed comments at any time by editing this page.

Notes for students
This section contains general student feedback for relatively common issues or comments made by the marker of the ANOVA assignments, 2008.

Distribution of marks

 * Frequency distribution of marks by grade
 * Descriptive statistics

APA style

 * 1) APA style uses Times New Roman 12 pt font throughout (and bold is not used).
 * 2) It is generally good practice to include an APA style cover page (i.e., title, author, etc.; which is largely for academic purposes) in addition to the official UC cover page which is largely for administrative and legal purposes (most, but not all students provided this).
 * 3) The first line of paragraphs (including the abstract) are indented.
 * 4) Comma usage was often poor
 * 5) Citations: If there are six or more authors, use et al. for first and subsequent citations.

Abstract

 * 1) Only report particularly important statistics in the abstract.
 * 2) Keep it tight; remove any extraneous information.
 * 3) The APA manual recommends 120 words, although 140 to 160 is OK for a lab report.

Introduction

 * 1) A relatively brief rationale and explanation of the focus of the study, followed by explanation of the key constructs and logically-derived hypotheses was all that was required.
 * 2) The strongest, most focused introductions tended to be up to ~1,300 words; longer than that seemed to be somewhat unnecessary for the purposes of the exercise.

Method

 * 1) The three key sections are to be headed: Participants, Measures (or Instrumentation or Apparatus), and Procedure
 * 2) Design is an optional section, usually only for complicated studies.
 * 3) Analysis is an optional section, usually only for studies with unusual or complex analyses.

Results

 * 1) Tables of descriptive for ANOVAs with two more IVs could often have been considerably improved in many cases. Some notes and examples about this have been added to Advanced ANOVA/Factorial ANOVA.
 * 2) Generally, eta-squared effect sizes were reported and interpreted well, however, Cohen's d effect sizes were reported and understood less well. See effect sizes.

Discussion

 * 1) Cross-sectional data does not provide evidence of causality.

Coversheet

 * Some students used the wrong coversheet. This is partly because:
 * An electronic coversheet was posted relatively late to the due date.

Submission

 * Was relatively smooth, however student difficulties included:
 * One student had a very large file size (probably due to the volume of content pasted from SPSS output) which caused difficulties in emailing
 * One student had to make several attempts to email over several days (probably due to known problems with the universities' student email server)

Notes by students
Feel free to add feedback here.


text:
User talk:Sclewin

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sclewin


text:
Wikiversity:Colloquium/Wikipedia Ethics

Cleaning up Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia
Yesterday Jimbo published the following comment about Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia: "I would recommend that a significant number of the attack pages be deleted, and the project protected at least for now, pending a good community discussion of what something like this should look like." Jimbo's suggestion reflects wide concerns around Wikiversity about this project, but I think we should nevertheless, if we can, try to resolve the problems around this project in a non-authoritarian manner by devolving as much responsibility as possible onto the participants in this project. As editing on this project appears to have stopped by itself for the time being, there is no immediate reason to protect the project, and this in turn means we can leave the project in a state where the participants can straighten it out without recourse to custodial action. Watching User:Dzonatas's edits yesterday gave me an idea about how the participants might want to start their clean-up - but this is just an idea and the participants might do something different. My suggestion is that every participant who feels they have valuable material they would like to preserve, temporarily moves the material to their userspace; after a period of (say) 5 days, we then assume that anything left in the project is unwanted and a custodian is requested to delete all the remains; the project is then recreated, perhaps with a better name, and a discussion begun on the project main page about how best to reintegrate the rescued materials now on the user pages of the participants. But perhaps there are other ways to do the clean-up. As you are all ethics specialists, you won't be surprised by the idea that freedom carries responsibility, and I hope that this high profile project will become self-managed in an impressive manner to all those watching it. Over to the participants now. --McCormack 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not understand the value of your approach. I wish to hold off editing as much as possible at WikiVersity until the custodians here figure out consensus on the problems related to the ethics project. Please copy the entire project into my user space, if you think moving content to user space makes sense. I started this project and feel its structure is mine and wish to preserve that as well as various changes to various parts that I do not actually "own". Thank you to everyone who is using this as an opportunity to better figure out what WikiVersity wants to become. WAS 4.250 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi WAS. Personally I do not know what the consensus is on the project, short of guessing that there is none at the current time. I'm hoping, as an initial approach to this, that the participants can draw together and state their consensus so that custodians can then implement any recommendations emerging from your consensus. --McCormack 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) WAS: The custodians can not figure out what the consensus is until those involved start discussing ideas, and then the community comments on those suggestions. Instead of holding off on editing I would encourage you, and others, to draft some ideas on how to manage the project so that it can lead to a constructive learning experience.  If you'd like some suggestions on where to start I would be happy to offer some advice.  You could, for example, start a narrative at Learning from conflict and incivility or just use a page in your userspace.  Feel free to leave a note on my talk page.  --mikeu talk 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * McCormack, can you list all of Moulton's pages that are part of the project and not part of his user space. I think we can then have an analysis of which ones to move and which ones to delete. Perhaps a simple vote (move and delete the two options), with a four point margin being necessary to perform either action, and those without a four point marging having further discussion? If this is too complicated or could cause problems, please, anyone, speak up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ottava. I must admit my current time expenditure on these issues is so high that I was hoping someone else could step in and help here. Please feel welcome to go ahead yourself if you can. --McCormack 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will, but I wont have time until this evening. I was afraid to step on anyone's toes if they already had a list. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I for one would like to see Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation deleted outright. I see no reason or value in keeping what is simply a thinly disguised attack page around, whether in mainspace, Moulton's space, or WAS's space, it is still a pack of defamatory lies and innuendo, and grossly mislabled as well. KillerChihuahua 17:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do others feel about this proposal? --McCormack 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua needs to provide evidence to support her claims. --JWSchmidt 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Support from me... I hadn't really looked at that page recently. "Salmon: maybe some day you will reveal your identity and why you support Wikipedians who think it is right for Wikipedia to publish false information in the name of "Our anti-Intelligent Design crusade is holy and right, so we can harm other people to further our glorious ends"."(JWSchmidt) is clearly neither civil nor NPOV, and much of the rest of the page is devoted to identifying the evils of the "crusaders" (with kinda shaky references at that, including many to Moulton's own non-peer-reviewed essays). --SB_Johnny talk 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * User:SB_Johnny <-- I believe that if you examine Salmon's user page and user talk page histories you will find that Salmon has voiced support for a team of Wikipedia editor who worked for over a year to include false negative claims in Wikipedia BLPs. The Wikipedia community has now largely repaired that damage and one of the team members is probably going to be de-sysoped by ArbCom. My accurate description of the situation is civil and based on factual documentation of research which you want to delete from Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose. As the proverb goes, "rumours have wings".   Even if they are sometimes written in bad style, there are legitimate concerned raised in these pages, at least to an uninformed onlooker.  You cannot stop rumours and lies by deleting them.  The correct way to untangle lies and rumours is to confront them directly;  the correct way to fix misrepresentation is to provide alternative point of views and let the readers decide;  lies will contradict themselves whilst the truth stands. Hillgentleman|Talk 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but every time someone has tried to confront, they've been reverted and/or chased off. I doubt we could find a neutral party with the time and willingness to separate wheat and chaff. --SB_Johnny talk 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnny, What do you mean by "every time someone has tried to confront, they've been reverted and/or chased off"? I would be grateful if you could point me to answers to some of the questions that has been raised.   For the closest I have seen to confronting the problems is the removal of materials.  All I have seen is Moulton's story.  I have not seen the story from the other point of view.   Hillgentleman|Talk 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At least two people (Salmon and KillerChihuahua) have tried to request that the tone be changed, and that personal information be removed. KillerChihuahua in particular is, in fact one of the people who could give us the "other side", but Moulton responded to her by addressing her by her RL name (which he knows she finds offensive), and after I removed the name in one place via editing, he used it again (twice) in another place putting the name in the edit comment (those were oversighted). Neutral parties attempted to engage them on the irc channel as well, and were treated very rudely by JWSchmidt and Moulton. --SB_Johnny talk 10:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Had they presented their case squarely and fairly, I would have love to read it. I have seen Salmon had a little attempt to explain why Moulton was banned but his project didn't take off, and he hadn't addressed the starting point of the problem - questions concerning the potential problems in the maintainence of biographies of living persons in the English Wikipedia;  in the end he focused his wikiversity contributions on an edit war with Moulton;  and KillerChihuahua came very late and he had not done that either.   And your comment above confirms my observation, that there has not been a genuine presentation of the other point of view.  That is very unfortunate for us all.  --Hillgentleman|Talk 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * "treated very rudely" <-- I'd like you to support this statement with evidence. Give specific examples. I believe that you sometimes interpret challenges to authority as "rude". I believe that you sometimes interpret challenges to unfounded statements as "rude". I believe that you sometimes interpret people defending themselves against false charges as "rude". Many conversations in IRC take this form: IRCuserA: "The sky is green." IRCuserB: "Ha ha! Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the sky is green?" IRCuserA: "I like green." IRCuserB: "Your argument is no good. Don't you have evidence and reasoning to support your claim?" IRCuserA: "You are rude! You are calling me a liar! You are are attacking me!" IRCuserB: "When did I call you a liar?" IRCuserA: "I want a pony." Yes, IRCuserA then probably goes away to complain to someone that IRCuserB is rude. Has IRCuserB actually been rude? No. I've asked Moulton to abandon his interest in the real world identities of anonymous wiki editors. When I asked participants in Wikiversity and #wikiversity-en to make Privacy policy our rule, to make that official policy, to put in the #wikiversity-en topic what the rules are, nothing was done. --JWSchmidt 11:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence has been provided and you have yet to respond. --SB_Johnny talk 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a direct link to the specific evidence. I've started working through Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt, but it will probably take me several weeks to get through that page. I am on case #3. --JWSchmidt 12:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Adding Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics as page with some attack page content. Suggest deletion as above. KillerChihuahua 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Note: A proposal was already made at Requests for Deletion by User:Sunstar NW XP for the ethics project to be removed from the site - It might also be wise for anyone to express view on that page. DarkMage  19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The listing only mentions two pages, plus the one in the heading. If the request is to discuss removing the entire project, that must be stated in the listing.  --mikeu talk 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although that maybe so - if those two pages are up for deletion, even the main page then the other pages will be affected by it as well - due to the discussion taking place here about the project, I thought it might be best to alert others that someone had placed a request for deletion about those pages on the page. DarkMage  19:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The listing has changed several times. I have started a section on the talk page about this. As far as I can tell, this is turning into a bit of a muddle. Suggest a bit of discussion might be indicated before things get even messier. KillerChihuahua 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only two pages listed before were the two pages that are already nominated based on CSD blanking concerns. Since the original creator of the page did not list it for CSD, I could not consider it as a CSD based on author. The original creator then said that the information came from else where, and to prevent any unilateral problems that could occur, I recommended putting it through a community vote. Please do not consider those two pages as part of the above, as they were blank pages that were once host of information but are no longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "a significant number of the attack pages" does not mean every page in the entire ethics project. It is obvious the a review of the project is needed. A review can not be easily done when it has been wiped. It makes me wonder why suddenly some take part in this point to make drastic actions. They certainly could have put time into this project earlier; however, it is hard to say that Wales's statement here was not without thought to further the project. The project was active and steps were taken to broaden the topics covered. It appears the main 'case studies' focus is where the hang-up came. I noticed it earlier when edit wars that really shouldn't happen started to happen. No, we can not center out Moulton for the edit wars. In this regards, I do not consider Moulton banned. People went as far to each have their own section, but there still were those that constantly overwrote others content. When it comes down to it, it is not against WMF to be critical about WMF or others.

Sue Gardner even states, "In general, the considerations for Wikinews reporters covering the Foundation are probably fairly similar for any journalist covering anybody: if they are responsible and fair, they'll earn the respect and cooperation of the people and organizations they cover, even if their work is challenging. If they behave irresponsibly, over time they will find that people refuse to cooperate with them."  Obviously that quote is more about Wikinews events, and I'm sure the statement is easily applied across Wikimedia since it was in general about media organizations. Wales suggest we find principles, and the obvious principle here is to be able to present any future case studies in a fair and responsible fashion. I believe that principle goes beyond case studies and carries over into other pages as well.

What's fair? I know someone mentioned here on a page that they felt they didn't have to follow scholarly ethics at all because the scholarly ethics policy is not official. If it is simple as that, then I don't think we should be allowed to propose blanket deletion because there is no policy to state blanket deletion is allowed. In fact, the entire deletion policy is not official, so by the same logic applied to when to follow scholarly ethics we can apply to deletion review and just say we can't delete pages because it is not official. That would be fair, and all of these actions are obviously irresponsible.

The ethic project studies these. In that way it does get personal and is hard to be hypothetical and desired. I believe the ultimate goal is to evolve it all into hypotheticals, based on real instances, and principles we know to solve them.

There has been a desire to solve issues with BLPs. This is not easy. It is not easy to talk about. It is not easy to explain or even give examples because those could be BLP issues themselves. By some people's actions here, they show that there answer to BLP issues is to wipe out what is in their opinion a problem and maybe block a few along the way, and that happens often unilaterally. Wales seemed to recognize that new principles are needed to handle projects like this.

Moulton got Wales's attention like he wanted and to recognize some changes are needed, but I don't think Moulton saw that immediately from Wales's statement because of the block. I think this is where people started to say it wasn't handled well.

I have ideas on what to propose on how to handle this or for new principles, but consider that I haven't got any signatures in my contributions (i.e. Albert Einstein) and this awfully rushed desire to delete the entire ethics project, it makes me wonder if they are worth even suggesting. Dzonatas 02:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * This thread is long. Shall we move to a subpage Colloquium/Wikipedia Ethics, as we often do on meta? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Hillgentleman. Or perhaps throw it back to the project's main talk page. One gets the feeling that it will get longer yet... -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity:Colloquium/Wikipedia Ethics


text:
User talk:ScribblewikiLover

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:ScribblewikiLover


title: User:Baccyak4H


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.RAMROD.A/HW1/HW1 contributing team members

=Contributing Members Sign Below=

Eml4500.f08.RAMROD.A 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ramrod.c 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ramrod.D 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

EML4500.f08.RAMROD.E 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Pergola EML4500.F08.RAMROD.B 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.RAMROD.F 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Eas4200c.f08.radsam/HW1 Contributors

Eas4200c.f08.radsam.a. 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Eas4200c.f08.radsam.r 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Eas4200c.f08.radsam.z 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Eas4200c.f08.radsam.s 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Eas4200c.f08.radsam.m 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Eas4200c.f08.radsam.d 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Roger~enwikiversity

Sorry, now I have tried two times to write an article about myself. But I didn´t manage to get one launched. I will try another time. Oh, now I did it. It is the "Save" key at bottom of this page. Now I will try again.

I am German and English is a foreign language to me. But I had English at school (for nine years), then at University Munich for five years. I changed my professional plans and did work without any relation to English. But at the age of 40 my interest in and love of English got the better of me and I started a small language-teaching institute, teaching English (mostly for adults), French, Latin (mostly for pupils) and even German as a foreign language (which was the most difficult subject for me, I must confess). After teaching languages for 15 year I changed my professional activites again so that English was my private hobby for a long time. During my teaching years I got a lot of experience in explaining grammar problems and I extended my life-long hobby of etymolgy. I collected my experiences in these areas in about forty big office files. But the longer you study English the more questions and problems arise and one wishes to know people with whom to talk about these questions. Now I am sixty-five and this summer I´ bought a laptop with access to internet. And I found wikipedia and its wealth of files about languages and the English language. I found questions (on typical school grammar) and found at the same time I could give better answers and better help sometimes and that's why I created an account. I don't know if I will really write contributions, as I'm not sure I will find the relevant pages I read in wikipedia again. But what I would like best is to find people with whom to discuss language problems that interest me such as the non-grammatical saying: You had better go home. Sayings and idioms is by the way another hobby and area of interest of mine. I would welcome people who have the same interests, visit my talk-page or e-mail to ruediger zirkel@web.de. Well, I think that's enough for this evening, especially as I've written this page now for the third time. Bye, --Roger 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

According to my inexperience I have different names in different areas. Roger in wikiversity, Roger18 in wikipedia (English and German wikipedia). But also Roger1 and Rodger. I've already talked about this problem with my mentor, and hope this confusion can be righted. But for the time being I'm going to use Roger and Roger18, and will try to avoid Roger1 and Rodger. I wonder what name I will manage in the French wikipedia.

Due to the different names my first contributions are not easily found. Right-Left-Etymology I hid in Roger, my talk. Afrikaans A Comparison of Grammar structures of German, Dutch, English, Africans. The development from highly complicated grammar structures to the simplest forms of structures in Afrikaans, almost the level of Esperanto. Roger, wikiversity, Afrikaans Afrikaans for those who would be interested in this language: one of the best first readers: Herge's Tintin stories.--Roger 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User:Roger~enwikiversity


text:
User:Sclewin

I'm a Canadian currently trying to increase my knowledge in the computer sciences. I would prefer to go to a regular University, but I can not afford it at this time, so I am taking on the help of the kind people at Wikiversity.

I am interested in learning web based technologies PHP, MySQL, Javascript, and may wish to learn the programming languages Python and C. I am planning on following the suggested study plan in the Computer science.

--Sclewin 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User:Sclewin


text:
User talk:Yosef.garibaldi.gmail

Yosef.garibaldi.gmail (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

unit 1 -- numbers
base 2 (binary) -- boolean logic

base 16 (hexadecimal) -- byte code editing using hexadekadigit twins

base 256 (ascii dos charset) -- ascii art

base 65536 (unicode) -- chinese, japanese, korean, thai, hindi, tibetan, russian

unit 2 -- art
fractals

noise

signals

fire and smoke

morse code

fiber optics

ternary quantum computing applications for real-time rendering of 4-dimensional space

unit 3 -- scientific method
plan, experiment, record results, interpret results, draw conclusions, repeat, ...

unit 4 -- programming
shalom eleichem, aretz v'mayim v'shamayim

game theory -- conway's game of life

unit 5 -- information theory
set theory applications in the workforce of C. E. 2001 in the Anglo-American sphere of influence

the fractal geometry of sound
introduction -- an Fa below the Do is an inverted fraction, the normal fraction being a 3/2, or a Sol, with the 'below' signifying that the inverted fraction being 2/3 becomes when above the Do a 4/3. the integer ratios of the do, re, mi, sol, and ti can be inverted to obtain integer ratios over 720. the notes which do not mirror on the other side of the mirror of Do can be obtained through multiplying fractions. A two-semitone jump multiplied by an other two-semitone jump can get a fraction of 81/64, and the elusive Fa# and La can be obtained through this method.

unit A -- do
248

unit B -- re
..9

unit C/G -- mi
.5A

unit E/He -- sol
36C

unit Z/Zed/Zayin -- ti
..F

unit 1 -- radio
cellular phones

unit 2 -- thermal radiation
heat lamps used in chicken factories

unit 3 -- red
hemoglobin gives blood its color

unit 4 -- green
chlorophyll makes interesting green blends

unit 5 -- blue
light scattering in the atmosphere allows the blue frequencies of sunlight to show in the sky

unit 6 -- ultraviolet radiation
this radiation can cause transcription errors in ribonucleic acids

unit 7 -- x-rays
muscle and fat are partly opaque to these rays, which are more affected by bone and lead.

unit 8 -- gamma rays
these rays are found in a nuclear reactor core

unit 9 -- cosmic rays
these rays are from the stars, including the shemesh in our own system. the shemesh is the star which is closest to the Earth.

Yosef.garibaldi.gmail 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 22:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yosef.garibaldi.gmail


text:
User talk:Roger~enwikiversity

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

List of questions about Wikiversity
--Roger 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I have found the Online Etymology Dictionary on Wikipedia or Wikiversity somewhere, but can't find it anymore. How do I get there?
 * 2) e-mail, log-in table: under "e-mail" I gave my real e-mail address. But I think that's not the right thing. I don't understand the problem with confirmation of e-mail.

Online Etymology Dictionary
Were you looking for this Online Etymology Dictionary, I wonder? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Many thanks, Itneill. --Roger 13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Email
You only need to confirm your email address if you want to allow other users to click on the "E-mail this user" link and be able to send you email. I just tried to do that (to email you), and got "No e-mail address - This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) -- Ah, now I see. I'm going to confirm my email address. Thanks, --Roger 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unified login
I replied on the Colloquium, but I'm wondering whether you have the same name on the different wiki projects, e.g., is this you? w:User:Roger. I suspect not - although note that that person hasn't edited since 2002. This is not really an area I know much about, but you can 'usurp' a name which someone else has registered on a wiki project but which hasn't been used for a long time in order to unify and protect your registered name across the different Wikimedia Foundation wikis. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roger~enwikiversity


text:
Medicine/First Aid

is any assistance that can be given to a victim before medical help arrives. It can range from putting a bandaid on a cut to administering CPR. Medical emergencies do not occur every day, but being prepared and knowing how to treat them can help you keep your calm in these situations. It is important for all adults to have a functional knowledge of how to handle common medical emergencies.

Common injuries/emergencies
The most common injuries/emergencies requiring First Aid are:

 * Allergic reactions
 * Anaphylaxis
 * Animal bites
 * Blisters
 * Bruises
 * Burns
 * Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
 * Chemical burns
 * Chest pain
 * Choking
 * Corneal abrasion (scratch)
 * Cuts and scrapes
 * Dislocation
 * Electrical burns
 * Electrical shock

 * Fainting
 * Fever
 * First aid kits
 * Food-borne illness
 * Foreign object in the ear, eye, nose or the skin
 * Foreign object, inhaled or swallowed
 * Fractures (broken bones)
 * Frostbite
 * Gastro-enteritis
 * Head trauma
 * Heart attack
 * Heat cramps
 * Heat exhaustion
 * Heat stroke
 * Human bites
 * Hypothermia

 * Insect bites and stings
 * Motion sickness
 * Nosebleeds
 * Ocular injuries
 * Poisoning
 * Puncture wounds
 * Severe bleeding
 * Shock
 * Snakebites
 * Spider bites
 * Spinal injury
 * Sprain
 * Stroke
 * Sunburn
 * Tick bites
 * Tooth loss
 * Toothache

How to Make a First Aid Kit
You should keep at least one first aid kit in your home and one in every car you and your family own. Whether it is a bee sting or a cut, a well stocked first aid kit will have all the supplies you need to treat minor ailments. A first aid kit should include: /Materials/

 * First Aid Manual
 * Sterile Gauze
 * Adhesive Tape
 * Adhesive Bandages in Several Sizes
 * Elastic Bandages
 * Antiseptic Wipes
 * Soap
 * Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen
 * Tweezers
 * Sharp Scissors
 * Safety Pins
 * Disposable Instant Cold Packs

 * Calamine Lotion
 * Alcohol Wipes or Ethyl Alcohol
 * Thermometer
 * Plastic Gloves
 * Antibiotic Cream
 * Antiseptic Solution
 * Hydrocortisone Cream
 * Flashlight and Extra Batteries
 * Mouthpiece for Administering CPR
 * List of Emergency Phone Numbers
 * Blanket (Stored Nearby)

Make sure that you read the first aid manual and know how to properly use all the items in the kit. Make sure you also train your family in how to use the kit, because you may be the one who needs the treatment! The best place to keep your first aid kit is in your kitchen, since this is where many activities take place. The bathroom is not a good place to keep your kit because the humidity can shorten the shelf life of many items.

A list of emergency numbers can also be useful in case a minor injury or sickness turns into something more serious. An easy template for all your local emergency numbers can be found at http://kidshealth.org/parent/firstaid_safe/sheets/emergency_contact.html.

How Can I Learn More About First Aid?
Many hospitals, health departments, and other health organizations will offer First Aid and CPR classes to its community members. In these classes you will have the opportunity to learn directly from health professionals. You will be able to observe as well as demonstrate First Aid procedures for most of the common injuries/emergencies mentioned earlier. Upon successful completion of the course you will receive a certification in First Aid and CPR. To find out more about First Aid/CPR classes in your area, you can contact your local health department or hospital. You can also visit the http://www.redcross.org/services/hss/courses/community.html to search for classes in your area.

title: Medicine/First Aid