text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Threats to the Wikiversity project

This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission.

Note: This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Note: This review is a work in progress. Note: Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. Note: Related review topics have been moved to separate pages:
 * Moulton
 * Outside interventions
 * Policy development
 * Many links were broken when these subpages (above) were created. If you click on a link and it does not take you to the correct page section, the link is no longer to the correct page.

Threats to the Wikiversity project

 * "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board." - User:Jimbo Wales
 * Sue Gardner - "I'm commenting here because Jimmy mentioned my name, and I got a few e-mails asking whether I'm supporting him. So I want to publicly say yes, I do."
 * Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity - User:Raul654

Topics for community discussion
What was the Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments project about? Why was it deleted? Why did it prompt User:Jimbo Wales to discuss the closure of Wikiversity? What were the results of discussion between User:Jimbo Wales and the Board? Was a valid reason ever given for deleting Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments? Should the Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments project now be undeleted? Why do some Wikipedians object to the idea that someone who is banned from Wikipedia can participate at Wikiversity? Will Wikipedians always control and disrupt Wikiversity and try to eliminate it? Given such threats to Wikiversity, why should anyone devote time to building Wikiversity?

Questions about threats

 * How are Wikiversity custodians or participants to blame for these actions? Do you blame Wikiversity community members or custodians for these actions? -- dark lama  14:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, are you trying to blame Wikiversity community members for Jimbo's odious attempt to intimidate the Wikiversity community? --JWSchmidt 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I thought you might be blaming Wikiversity community members for those actions though, since you brought it up here. You didn't say why these actions were brought up, which could mean you blame Wikiversity community members for those actions. -- dark lama  15:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Eh? The people mentioned above are not regular Wikiversity participants. Jimbo made a rash statement in March. It did some damage, I suspect. But so what? What is the "problematic action" here? That Jimbo said such and such? There was, in fact, no Board support for closing Wikiversity at that time. There was already an RfC on meta covering Jimbo's actions, and the result, ultimately, was that Jimbo resigned from the intrusive "action tools." In other words, this particular battle is over. So why is JWS bringing it up? Jimbo did take certain actions in March. We can and will undo these if we so decide. Let's see if JWS actually proposes something concrete or just wants to complain more. What solution would JWS propose for this problem? Jimbo already suffered the possible humiliation of a 4:1 !vote to remove his Founder tools on meta, with over 500 !votes. What does JWS want? Public flogging? Putting Jimbo in stocks? --Abd 15:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * It occurs to me that the "problematic action" was an out-of-process intervention that, under the best of conditions, would take months to undo via "baby steps" carried out at a snail's pace. So far, there isn't even much of a community discussion to decide whether to find a way to remediate the damage.  As I recall, it was just a few days ago, Abd, that you and others were stipulating that any such community review would be untimely and off-limits from the discussion forums here.  Moulton 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "It did some damage, I suspect. But so what?" Abd, how many Wikiversity participants left the project in disgust following Jimbo's bullying? How many honest Wikiversity Custodians remain intimidated by such outside interference in Wikiversity affairs? --JWSchmidt 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "What solution would JWS propose for this problem?" <-- I have repeatedly (recent example) proposed that since Moulton was subjected to an infinite duration block imposed from outside Wikiversity against Wikiversity community consensus and since Moulton was subjected to a global ban that was put in place without Wikiversity community consensus, the User:Moulton account should be unblocked by an honest Custodian with a log entry indicating that the original indef block was made against Wikiversity community consensus. Constructive edits from any source should always be allowed to stand at Wikiversity. There is no basis in Wikiversity policy for censorship of constructive contributions to Wikiversity community discussions. Sysops must stop abusing the "protect" tool so as to censor Wikiversity community discussions. --JWSchmidt 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to the request to unblock Moulton, my understanding is that the current local WV block is based on the 2008 community review: Community Review/Moulton's block. An unblock request could be made as a separate community review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I urge Wikiversity participants to closely examine the nature of the 2008 "community" review. As discussed here the 2008 "community" review had no basis in policy, it was an orchestrated show trial that took place while Wikiversity community members had been blocked and the existence of Wikiversity threatened in an attempt to intimidate the community. The closing statement on that 2008 "community" review is a fabrication. There was no announcement to the Wikiversity community that a ban of Moulton would be discussed let alone proclaimed by User:SB Johnny. The abortive discussion of a proposed ban (page section: "Proposed Ban of Moulton") that is on that page was closed as "Withdrawn per nom". Why is such a travesty of justice still being enforced? User:Moulton should be unblocked at once. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes community review had no documented process at the time. What policy requires that a process be documented first? How was the review "orchestrated"? How was the review a "show trial"? Do you mean that the outcome of the review was the result of community intimidation? Do you have any evidence to support that people were intimidated? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that the outcome would of been any different? -- dark lama  17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS says "As discussed here the 2008 "community" review had no basis in policy". That may be true however that doesn't make it invalid. Since it is the community that decides policies, the community can decide to do things not documented in a policy or go against policies. That may influence later policy development or, in the case of existing policies, prompt a rewriting. On the issue of polices, or lack of, on a similar note, that there isn't a policy specifying a particular behaviour is not permitted again doesn't mean that the community cannot declare the behaviour unacceptable and block. Adambro 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That brings up some other good questions. What policy invalidates any discussion that isn't based in policy? What policy invalidates any decision that isn't based in policy? What policy invalidates any consensus that isn't based in policy? -- dark lama  17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What policy requires that a process be documented first?" <-- Not policy...it is common sense, human decency and principles of justice that tell honest wiki participants that there should have been a community discussion before Wikipedians imposed the disruptive Wikipedia system of bad blocks, threats, and show trials upon the Wikiversity community. Wikilawyering in support of unjust practices is disrupting the Wikiversity community. Unjust practices like bad blocks, threats, and show trials disrupt the Wikiversity mission. I'm astonished that a few misguided sysops continue speak in support of such vile practices. The imposition of bad blocks, threats, and show trials destroyed the Wikiversity community. How was the review "orchestrated"? <-- Darklama, why don't you tell the Wikiversity community the details. I was subjected to a bogus ban (which you enforced) from #wikiversity-en by the sysop who falsified the closing statement of the "community" review that we are discussing. I have the IRC channel logs of events leading up to that ban, the bad block that was imposed on my editing and the emergency desysop that I was subjected to when no emergency existed. Darklama, please tell us how it was decided that I should be blocked, banned and desysoped without community consensus? Who orchestrated those abominable acts? Why did you not object to such horrible practices being introduced to the Wikiversity community? As you well know, I was abused by the same people orchestrated the "community" review of Moulton's block and turned it into a show trial. Darklama, I've asked before, do you agree that IRC logs showing your actions in #wikiversity-en can be published at Wikiversity so that the community can see how you and other sysops abused your channel operator power and used that channel to orchestrate events at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the #wikiversity-en channel was used to make decisions that effect the wiki? #wikiversity-en has never been used to make decisions that effect the wiki in my presence. I would object to using #wikiversity-en to make decisions that effect the wiki, if anyone ever proposed doing so in my presence. No decision to block Moulton or you from the wiki was ever discussed in #wikiversity-en in my presence. I have on occasions suggested that discussion be moved to wiki when I thought discussion should happen on wiki. Your implications that the #wikiversity-en was used to make decisions sounds like paranoia and a failure to assume good faith to me. -- dark lama  18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the #wikiversity-en channel was used to make decisions that effect the wiki? <-- This is why Wikiversity needs a policy that will guide behavior in that chat channel, rather than allow abusive sysops to operate in secret. I ask again, do you agree that the logs relevant to your participation in #wikiversity-en can be used as evidence here in this community review? Early in the existence of Wikiversity precedent was set for publishing chat logs on wiki, for example, see this. Of course, that kind of openness was before the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 when a few abusive sysops started to misuse their channel operator powers. Wikiversity has, before the hostile takeover, even used #wikiversity-en for community discussion of needed policies. "I would object to using #wikiversity-en to make decisions that effect the wiki, if anyone ever proposed doing so in my presents" <-- The #wikiversity-en chat channel was used in many constructive ways before the hostile takeover. I think that the Wikiversity community should return to making use of the Wikiversity chat channel as a public meeting place for collaborating Wikiversity participants. "Your implications that the #wikiversity-en was used to make decisions sounds like paranoia and a failure to assume good faith to me." <-- This is why the Wikiversity community needs a policy that opens the chat channel to scrutiny by the community. I have chat logs showing how #wikiversity-en has been used. Please agree that all chat logs related to your participation in #wikiversity-en can be used here in this community review as evidence. --JWSchmidt 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the Wikiversity precedent relied on asking participants permission to publish what they said before doing so. How is that any different from now? Are you suggesting that precedent isn't enough any more? Again you sound paranoid and like you are failing to assume good faith. -- dark lama  19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I believe the Wikiversity precedent relied on asking participants permission to publish" <-- but in those peaceful days there was then (before the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008) no need to protect community members from abusive channel operators. Why won't you agree to let the community see how you have behaved in #wikiversity-en? Honest Custodians are proud of their actions and have nothing to hide. We can start here: User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10. Did you participate in that IRC chat session? In that channel log, do you see any stated decisions about what will happen on-wiki? Did you object to it? --JWSchmidt 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that discussion started before I was at my keyboard, I do not know the entire story, and I was a bit busy at the time with other things to give the discussion my full attention. I would say that I was not actively involved in that discussion, but yes I did inject objections into the discussion to things I noticed being said as time allowed. Not being aware of the whole story, I also have no idea to what extent any decision was actually being made or proposed, or what anyone's intentions actually were. I believe I was not in any position to accurately judge what if anything needed to be done. Adambro was in a better position than me to decide what course of action if anything needed to be done. -- dark lama  21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you have had a chance to give your full attention to what was said here, if that kind of discussion takes place in #wikiversity-en then should the entire Wikiversity community have access to the chat log or do you believe that such discussions should be hidden from the community? If you think that they should be hidden, please explain why. Do you agree that blocks should be limited to 24 hours? Where is the on-wiki community discussion of the idea that blocks should be limited to 24 hours? Do you agree that "In all other cases a clear warning must first be left on the participant's talk page"? Do you think the wikiversity community should have a chance to decide if #wikiversity-en chat is or is not "private correspondence" or have you decided that matter for the community? Please provide your definition of "correspondence". Isn't #wikiversity-en a public IRC channel, by definition? --JWSchmidt 22:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing that the "log" is the complete story, so I haven't given my full attention to it. I think people can discuss issues from irc without a log. I believe a irc log is circumstantial evidence since there is no way for anyone that wasn't there to know whether the record is accurate or accurately represents the whole picture. People can join in at different points of a conversation as well, resulting in different perspectives of whats going on. Anyone can falsify evidence to suit their agenda by claiming that a discussion happened on irc. I haven't decided anything for the community. My last change to the privacy proposal removed any mention of irc at all, leaving whether it is or not up in the air. #wikiversity-en is open to the public in the sense that anyone can join at any time, but the irc daemon software does not keep a permanent record of discussions for public viewing like wiki does. A bar can be open to the public, while still being a privately owned business, to use an analogy. Another analogy might be a voting station that is open to the public, while people still having an expectation of privacy within a voting booth. -- dark lama  00:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "whether the record is accurate" <-- Maybe we could use a bot to make an automated record directly to a Wikimedia server. I'd prefer to have a permanent log available rather than allowing channel operators to continue misusing their power. "I haven't decided anything for the community" <-- You keep removing important parts of the proposal rather than let the community see those parts and discuss them. --JWSchmidt 03:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A single bot? You do realize more than one server makes up freenode right? You would need a bot on ever server in order to continue to log everything should connection problems between servers lead to two or more servers disconnecting from each other. What happens if any bot(s) have connections problems of their own? You can't stop people from talking. Also how does logging #wikiversity-en in any way address your concern that people are discussing things and making decisions in "secret"? I think a Wikiversity policy requiring decisions to be based in consensus established on-wiki is the only effective way to limit any potential for abuse that could arise from using other communication mediums, and the only established way to keep all discussions open and transparent.
 * The community can use the "history" button to view what you wrote, you could also add what you wrote to the talk page. -- dark lama  12:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "servers disconnecting" <-- I doubt if it would strain Wikimedia resources to log from every freenode server. "a Wikiversity policy requiring decisions to be based in consensus established on-wiki" <-- this has always been implicit policy, it is sad that it needs to be "made official" so that it can be officially ignored. "to keep all discussions open and transparent" <-- I doubt if a policy requiring decisions to be based in consensus established on-wiki would prevent abuses of channel ops. The community can use the "history" button <-- And how many people never look in the history or read the talk page? Darklama please stop disrupting the ability of Wikiversity community members to propose new policy. --JWSchmidt 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt freenode would be willing to give Wikimedia permission to do that, assuming Wikimedia were willing. I agree that "decisions require on-wiki discussion" has always been implicitly policy, but not everyone seems to know that or agree with it. How do you expect the Wikiversity community to discuss proposed policies if they don't know how to read a talk page? JWSchmidt, please start making sense. -- dark lama  14:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I doubt freenode would be willing" <-- Why not. How would they even know about it? "How do you expect the Wikiversity community to discuss proposed policies if they don't know how to read a talk page?" <-- I think it is clear that most Wikiversity participants are not interested in policies. On the rare occasions when a notice is posted asking that community members help with policy development they should not have to go on a hunt to learn what has been proposed and what is under discussion. Anyhow, the privacy policy is a matter for another thread. --JWSchmidt 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * How was the review a "show trial"? <-- From Show trial: "Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law." As you are well aware, Moulton was blocked from participation at Wikiversity during that show trial. Votes were already being cast while I was blocked from participating in the show trial. The show trial violated basic principles of justice such as allowing the accused a chance to be defended against bogus charges: Moulton never violated a Wikiversity policy. The show trial was closed by an involved sysop who had started the foolishness of blocking Moulton even though Moulton had violated no Wikiversity policy. It was a show trial because the Wikiversity community had been intimidated by threats against the very existence of Wikiversity. Moulton was treated like a scape goat to appease the Godking. The wiki hitman who came to Wikiversity on the mission to get Moulton banned participated in the show trial. The show trial was deceptively called "Moulton's block" and then closed as constituting a community ban, without the community being informed that a ban might be imposed. The essence of a show trial is that "guilty" is the verdict before the trial starts. Under the threats and intimidation and strong-arm tactics abusively employed by Jimbo and the invading thugs from Wikipedia who had targeted Moulton for a ban it was certain that the "community" review would reach the conclusion that it did. Darklama, you are aware of all these facts, but I thank you for asking the question so that the Wikiversity community can now discuss this abominable chapter in Wikiversity history. Justice should finally be done and User:Moulton should be unblocked by an honest Custodian. --JWSchmidt 18:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Do you mean that the outcome of the review was the result of community intimidation? Do you have any evidence to support that people were intimidated? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that the outcome would of been any different? <-- If someone came into your house and shot a member of your family, and got away with doing so, someone who could come back at any time for another shot, would you feel intimidated? If you want data I suggest we start a living history project and collect the data. We can invite back to Wikiversity all of the Wikiversity community members who have been blocked and banned since the hostile takeover in 2008 and ask if they feel intimidated by the abuse that they have been subjected to. We can invite back all of the honest Custodians who resigned in protest and quit participating in disgust. I can provide my personal data point: I feared for Wikiversity, that Jimbo would terminate the project, that there would be continuing bullying of the community if anyone dared resist, question or challenge his bad block. I doubt if you seriously think that the Wikiversity community was free of intimidation or that the level of intimidation was not huge and of decisive importance for the show trial that we are discussing. But let's start the data collection. Darklama, why don't you do the honorable thing and start by unblocking User:Moulton so he can finally defend himself against the horrific abuse that has been heaped upon him. Let Moulton come to this community discussion and share his thoughts. --JWSchmidt 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Need for a synopisis
I am personally overwhelmed by the text here -- simply too much to get a clear picture. It would be helpful to see a synopsis, especially focusing on what Mr Wales is unhappy about. Also, how does the board feel? I will keep working no matter what happens, transferring my writing to another wiki if necessary.

I sent this email to JWSchmidt, but he refered me here, so I assume it is OK to present it as an open letter now (delete irrelevant sections as necessary):

 * 'Did Jimbo Wales really say this? Or is it a fabrication?'
 * "I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER."
 * I have personally long held that we need to "give unto the Wikipedia," as in "give unto Caesar," because it is big and we are small -- and for no other reason.
 * Mr Wales mentions OER, which is "open educational resource," which I believe he means to be an educational, or perhaps "how to," version of the Wikipedia, which extends the concept of origial research to mean anything that is not the basic doctrine of the Wikipedia, which I am increasingly beginning to believe represents the basic "oligarchy" of Western Civilization, as it has been passed through to us from the ancient empires.
 * There is an odd movement on the Wikipedia to attempt to encapsulate very liberal concepts within very conservative ones, which may perhaps be the proper definition Neo-liberalism. You can see this in nearly any discussion, for instance, of anarchism; it reminds me of the attempted take-over by neo-nazis of the anarchist punk movement of the 1980s --why would anybody want to do something like that(?) it makes no sense!
 * My own research strategies are based on knowledge construction as an extension of scientific modeling; they are based on the idea of the building blocks upon which we all stand, and they are supported heavily by Constructivism, the educational branch created early in the last century by Vygotsky.
 * In knowledge construction there is no subjective or objective -- only valid data that can be used as building blocks. So-much-so that "objective" actually describes the use of objects as building blocks as an extension of computer science's object-oriented engineering, and not non-emotional thinking.
 * In Constructivism, all concepts are valid, including misconceptions. Misconceptions are important because Constructivists feel they need a starting place to build, which often means dismantling preconceptions in such a way that no one is offended, and that re-usable data is preserved to be reimplemented in ways that support valid models.
 * This is where I am personally going with the support of my former professors and mentors. I developed and documented these ideas while on the Wikiversity, and there is no logical reason for me to abandon them.
 * I am concerned that this educational and research trend (obviously not mine alone), is what is bothering Mr Wales; it is the modernization of modernism. In other words, knowledge construction does for Science what Picasso did for fine art; it brings us back to the roots of naturally-evolved human thought.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't see how reviewing this issue can lead to any betterment of the community. It is repeated claimed that the people making threats are outsiders to this community.  As I understand this review we are looking for ways to improve our policy, and our policy wouldn't apply to people outside our community.  What do we hope to accomplish, if the board members want to discuss shutting wikiversity down that is their prerogative, and not something that we can mandate against with our policy.  I can't imagine any solution beyond relocating our contributions to a non-WMF wiki, which anyone who wants to can do anyways.  There is nothing really gained by discussing it here. Thenub314 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that Wikiversity community can be protected by a Wikiversity policy on blocking and one on page deletion. User:Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and useful Wikiversity learning resources have been subjected to out-of-process page deletion (one famous example). Such odious abuses of power must be avoided in the future since they are contrary to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and values and the Wikiversity mission. Please read, Approved Wikiversity project proposal and this where it says, "We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community." "We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public." The Wikimedia Foundation has a, Commitment to openness and diversity. This is our shared vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Wikiversity studies of ethical practices in Wikimedia has been declared outside the scope of Wikiversity by Wikimedia functionaries who, rather than respect the Wikiversity community, conspire in secret to eliminate scholars from participation at Wikiversity and who act in defiance of Wikiversity community consensus. Since 2008, disruptive Wikimedia functionaries have routinely censored and deleted valuable Wikiversity learning resources while falsely asserting that those learning materials were "outside of scope", disrupting the Wikiversity community and violating our shared vision and commitment. For example, an interesting exploration of ethical action was deleted. Why are such valuable Wikiversity learning resources destroyed by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trusties? Why do other Wikimedia functionaries inflict similar disruption upon the Wikiversity community, terrorizing and intimidating Wikiversity's scholarly participants? The disruption of Wikiversity that has occurred since 2008 is corruption of the stated goals and methods of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is now being documented in all of its sickening details at this community review. How does "We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public." become perverted into barbaric threats and intimidation made against the Wikiversity community, threats made in a bullying show of blatant disrespect for the consensus of the Wikiversity community? This community review process is leading to proposals for how to protect the Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 22:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Even if, for the sake of argument, I were to grant that everything you say above is correct and accurate this whole section is still moot. Your comments above really relate to what you have titled below as outside intervention.  We perhaps can discuss policies about how to handle things if/when we feel the WMF has exerted undue outside influence.  This section, judging from its first few sentences this section, should be about people at WMF discussing the closure of WV. The servers are theirs, it is their right to discuss it, nothing in our policy will ever effect that fact.  This is even more obvious since, if I accept your opinions above, they do not even abide by their own policy.  Where is the sense in trying to craft our policy to prevent them from doing something we find odious, but is within their rights?  (Particularly if the feeling is they will not follow any policy anyways?).  Let me emphasize that my point is that a section discussing threats to wikiversity is not helpful, and my comment should not be misconstrued in other sections to mean that I have agreed/disagreed with anything in the above comments.  (I am just accepting it academically for the sake of discussion.) Thenub314 09:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "We perhaps can discuss policies" <-- I think Wikiversity needs a Blocking policy and a Deletion policy. "it is their right to discuss it" <-- True, but if such discussions take place then the Wikiversity community should be informed in a proper way. Thenub314, please note that a letter was sent the the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees seeking clarification about actions taken by Jimbo Wales at Wikiversity. That would have been a perfect opportunity for the Foundation to communicate with the Wikiversity community and explain their discussions about closing Wikiversity. However, there has never been a reply to the letter or any communication about the Board's discussions concerning the closure of Wikiversity. Where is the sense in trying to craft our policy to prevent them from doing something we find odious, but is within their rights? <-- Can you give an example of something we find odious, but is within their rights? "a section discussing threats to wikiversity is not helpful" <-- I don't agree. It has been possible for other Wikimedia project communities to defend themselves against unwise external intrusions. Wikiversity can do the same. --JWSchmidt 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

About your first sentence, that is great but has nothing to do with threats to WV made by members of the WMF, and belongs in some later section. I personally don't see any compelling reason for them to inform us about every conversation they have. It is there decisions, and reasons for those decisions, that should be clear. They should feel free to discuss amongst themselves. Perhaps they could tell us the decision was no, perhaps no decision as been made. Perhaps it was never even discussed. There is no reason to fault the Foundation failing to communicate, it is not clear there is anything to communicate.

Yes, I can example of something we find odious and is within their rights: closing Wikiversity.

How have other WMF wiki's defended themselves against threats made by the WMF about their closure?

On a personal note, could you please stop quoting and linking sentence fragments? It both makes your reply more difficult to read and takes parts of what is said out of context. If your linking to something elsewhere I can understand, even in another section on the page, but it is particularly distracting when there are multiple links to the same reply in one paragraph and the reply is the paragraph immediately preceding it. Thenub314 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thenub314, you wrote, "About your first sentence, that is great but has nothing to do with threats to WV made by members of the WMF, and belongs in some later section." However, I think a community that can defend itself will no longer be subjected to threats. Thenub314, I don't understand why you wrote, "I personally don't see any compelling reason for them to inform us about every conversation they have." Has anyone suggested that the WMF Board should tell us about every conversation they have? I was talking about something of vital importance to the Wikiversity community, the fact that we were told that the Board was discussing the termination of the Wikiversity project. I think the Board has an obligation to keep the Wikiversity community informed about something like that. Thenub314, you wrote, "There is no reason to fault the Foundation failing to communicate, it is not clear there is anything to communicate." However, the Wikiversity community was informed that the Board was discussing closure of Wikiversity. Such news has a very disruptive influence on a wiki community. Failure of the Board to follow up with some kind of clarification/communication is an on-going source of disruption. Such poor communication just drives people away from the project. Thenub314, you wrote,"Yes, I can example of something we find odious and is within their rights: closing Wikiversity." Some people think that if Wikiversity establishes new/better policies and procedures then there will be fewer threats to close Wikiversity. Thenub314, you wrote, "How have other WMF wiki's defended themselves against threats made by the WMF about their closure?" I said that other projects had defend themselves against unwise external intrusions. I'm not aware that any other project has been threatened with closure in the way that Wikiversity has. --JWSchmidt 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * JWSchmidt, please provide an example of a situation where "other projects had defend themselves against unwise external intrusions." -- dark lama  17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia has a long tradition of limiting what Wikimedia functionaries from outside Wikipedia can do, for example, see this Wikipedia page. Another example is described in the Signpost. --JWSchmidt 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
Proposals for how to improve Wikiversity procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.

Some related proposals are on another page: see also: 8. Official policy on consensus, 9. Official policy on blocking
 * Rollback Policy Fix
 * Policy for IRC chat
 * Privacy Issues
 * Truth in Advertising
 * Vandalism
 * Page Deletion
 * CheckUser rules

 * There is another page for Policy development proposals

New Proposal
add you proposal here


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Moulton

Point of Order. Moulton should be notified about this community review on his user talk page. Also, Moulton should be allowed to freely participate on this page.

This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission.

Note: This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Note: This review is a work in progress. Note: Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. Note: Related review topics have been moved to separate pages:
 * Threats to the Wikiversity project
 * Outside interventions
 * Policy development
 * Many links were broken when these subpages (above) were created. If you click on a link and it does not take you to the correct page section, the link is no longer to the correct page.

Moulton
I don't know if this community review is following the Community Review Policy which seems intended to allow community discussion of "particular issues of contention on a case-by-case basis". I was asked to start a review for "problematic actions", which seems too wide-ranging to fit into one of the types of reviews listed in the policy. It has been suggested that this review might be fragmented, and I feel that it could usefully lead to several "Requests for clarifications" that would help move ahead needed policy development. I think this community review has already identified several bottlenecks in policy development that have been hampering Wikiversity.

I have been trying to keep this review centered on ideas for improving Wikiversity policies and procedures, but I have been trying to notify Wikiversity community members who are mentioned in this review. However, this is not a "user conflict" review. I would like to notify User:Moulton on his user talk page about the fact that he has been mentioned here, but I can't edit that page. This seems absurd, since Moulton is well aware of this review. As can be seen in the section below (Disruption of Wikiversity caused by blocking Moulton), some Wikiversity community members are frustrated that Moulton cannot freely participate at Wikiversity. I think it would be useful if a decision was made about Moulton's participation in this review. I don't think it is fair to make someone a subject of a community review unless they can freely participate. I'd like some feedback on these questions:

1) Since Moulton has been unblocked, can he participate here on this page? 2) Could Moulton participate in a more specific community review that would address just his participation at Wikiversity? 3) It is easy to exclude Wikiversity community members from participation at Wikiversity, including by means of out-of-process blocks and "locks" imposed without Wikiversity community consensus, but there is no defined way to return community members to full participation. Do we have to create a new policy that describes how a previously blocked user can return to full participation at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 21:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Of course I am entitled to participant in Action Research to jointly solve the problems raised in these discussions. That's by the very definition of Action Research.  I have an unalienable right to participate.  Moulton 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Moulton's edits
Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and has now been unblocked. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". One Wikiversity Custodian has stated his intention to enforce the account lock and has been reverting Moulton's edits1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Can anyone explain the basis in Wikiversity policy for reverting Moulton's edits? --JWSchmidt 00:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I think we need to discuss if an account is unblocked locally but locked globally is it reasonable for good faith IP edits from the user in question to be allowed locally? Personally, I am comfortable with such edits remaining - but I am yet to look into WMF policy about global locks generally and Moulton's global lock more specifically - I've seen the global lock edit log but was there also any associated discussion on meta? Alternatively or in addition, do we want to have a community discussion about Moulton's block/unblock/detach account etc. in which Moulton can participate to help allow the community to consider the issues and perhaps unblock - more about this Request_custodian_action? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two currently active SUL locks of interest, the one of Moulton and the one of Thekohser. The one of Thekohser is a specially interesting example. Thekohser was declared "globally banned," unilaterally, by Jimbo in March of this year. However, that lock was removed when it was realized that local communities might wish to make their own decisions; when that was done, stewards went around to all the WMF wikis and blocked Thekohser individually. Then some of the wikis decided to unblock, and that was how it stood. But on May 30, Mike.lifeguard globally locked the account again, "per discussion." The venue of the discussion and who was involved remained unspecified when I asked Mike about it. I did check with another high-level functionary and found that there was some ... reputation ... for individual action there without community consensus. In any case, the events of March more or less established the precedent that local wikis could and should control their own process, Jimbo requested removal of almost all of the intrusive tools and no longer has the power to give them back to himself.

 * My point is that we have the power to unblock Thekohser or Moulton if we want to, and this was under discussion, when Darklama unblocked Moulton. Nobody has been willing to reblock, so, my conclusion is pretty simple. Moulton is not blocked, that is our local status quo. There is no precedent for local enforcement of a global block, it's a decision made at meta, usually for true "cross-wiki issues," such as massive vandalism. It's clear from the Steward's manual that the use of global locks to deal with critics of the WMF or marginal editing, civility, etc., is "off-label," specifically discouraged. If we want to bar Moulton from editing, we can and should block that account. The account, however, isn't blocked now. There are no policies against IP editing or using declared socks when one has a registered account and doesn't log into it. If Moulton is blocked, my understanding of policy has been that any admin can choose to enforce the block by blocking sock IP, and any editor may revert the edits of blocked editors on sight. (That is not the same as keeping them out completely, because any other editor may revert them back in by taking responsibility for them.) That's well established on Wikipedia and I see no reason to handle this differently here. --Abd 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I have been editing as an IP on Beta.Wikiversity.Org for a year and a half now. When MaxSem executed the SUL lock in December 2008, I not only had no advance warning, I had never even heard of such a feature in MediaWiki.  Nor do I have any idea who MaxSem is.  All that happened is that I would enter my login ID and password and not actually be logged in.  It just looked like some kind of glitch in the system, so I edited as an IP.  Sometime later, they must have changed the SUL lock to accept the login but deny editing.  Since I had given up trying to login, I didn't know until quite recently that it was now possible to log in (but then not be able to edit).  There was not only no discussion on Meta about my case (or Greg's), there wasn't even any disclosure (as far as I knew) about the operating characteristics of either the SUL lock or the Titleblacklist.  Someone (I forget who, but perhaps it was JWS) eventually tracked these down and found the log entries.  Note that I am here at the invitation of half a dozen resident scholars who have asked me to collaborate with them on specific learning projects that they have under way here.  For obvious reasons, I no longer consider myself to be a resident scholar here, but I do still pay my remaining colleagues a visit from time to time to collaborate with them on their unfinished learning projects here.  User:Moulton 01:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell, a global account lock needs a reason such as massive vandalism of Wikimedia wiki projects. In Moulton's case, the "reason" was "enough is enough", an obvious sham excuse that does not meet the requirement for a valid lock action. Why would anyone enforce such an unjust "lock"? I think Wikiversity can and should rise above the underhanded methods that have been used to disrupt Moulton's scholarly participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 03:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Moulton Banned?

Ottava claims that he blocked Moulton because Moulton is banned, but he can provide no evidence to support his claim. I guess Adambro is still enforcing the absurd lock that was put on Moulton's account. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Some sysops have declared that they can unilaterally declare blocks and bans, regardless of what Wikiversity policy or community consensus says.

I want evidence that Moulton was banned, otherwise, the recently imposed block should be removed from his account. Adambro should stop enforcing the bad lock. --JWSchmidt 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the 21 July 2010 block imposed on User:Moulton a serious violation of Wikiversity policy which lists calling for unjustified blocks as a serious violation of the civility policy? "his attacks on others" <-- The blocking sysop has failed to provide evidence of "attacks". The recent block of User:Moulton looks like a bad block. There was no warning for the block, user talk page notification given, no chance for discussion or appeal. Why are sysops allowed to imposed blocks on Wikiversity community members without any due process or attempt at fairness? --JWSchmidt 13:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton was given 4 months of due process before Jimbo stepped in, and was blocked and warned repeatedly during that time. He has a copy of his old talk page. You have a copy of it. Stop pretending as if it never happened. It isn't becoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "his old talk page" <-- I was surprised to see you point in that direction. I spent time today looking at an archived copy of Moulton's user talk page and I found no discussion of a ban of Moulton. I also saw no reason for his talk page to be deleted, so if I missed something on it, please undelete the page and link this community review to the community discussion of a ban. Looking back at discussions from 2008, what I did see was three Wikipedians gaming the system and shouting hysterically in an effort to confuse and intimidate Wikiversity participants into unwise persecution of a Wikiversity community member. I wonder if it is embarrassment that led to the deletion of Moulton's talk page. Before Jimbo beamed into Wikiversity, Moulton had been blocked once for two hours. As far as I can tell, the warnings given to Moulton were all based on hysteria stirred up by three disruptive Wikipedians. I still want a link to the discussion where the community decided to ban Moulton. I don't believe that Moulton was ever community banned.

 * Here is my best guess of what happened in 2008. One of the Wikipedians who violated the Biographies of living persons policy, not satisfied to have imposed a bad block on Moulton's editing at Wikipedia, pursued Moulton to his personal website and viciously harassed Moulton. Moulton, rightfully defending himself against vile online harassment, posted to his blog the IP address of the person who harassed him. The IP address, linked to the bad behavior of the Wikipedian, had potentially damaging implications for the harasser. The next step was for the Wikipedia gang to pursue Moulton to Wikiversity and harass him here. They never bothered to explain to anyone that what had gotten their buddy in deep doo doo was his off-wiki harassment of Moulton. Unwilling to admit the real reason why they were seeking revenge against Moulton, the gang from Wikipedia finally found a way to persecute Moulton for his use of real names and one of them started pretending to be offended. When nobody at Wikiversity could be provoked into a bad block, Jimbo was called in. Bam!

 * "pretending as if it never happened" <-- I'm not pretending anything. Ottava Rima. Please provide a link to the Wikiversity community discussion of a ban...before everyone concludes that you are just pretending. --JWSchmidt 03:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Since Ottava Rima has not come forward with evidence to support the claim that Moulton was banned and that he has made attacks, I view Ottava's block of Moulton to be a serious violation of the civility policy. Ottava Rima, it is truly unfair to use the block tool to enforce your side of a personal dispute when no evidence has been produced in support of the accusations you made. Ottava Rima, either provide evidence or unblock Moulton. You can't block someone from participating at Wikiversity because he might not follow a rule from another website. Let Moulton help us develop a privacy policy that will both protect anonymous editors and protect living people from anonymous editors. --JWSchmidt 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Ottava Rima, why was Moulton singled out for his use of real world names when others such as KillerChihuahua were allowed to make statements such as "My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him." (see this discussion)? Ottava Rima, is it not true that the decision to ban Moulton from Wikiversity was made in secret, off wiki by just a few people? Ottava Rima, were you part of the secret off-wiki discussions where a few people decided to impose a ban on Moulton? Ottava Rima, is it true that Moulton was never community banned? Ottava Rima, please either respond here or remove the block that you imposed on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 02:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikiversity caused by blocking Moulton
On the Colloquium, since 25 June 2010, I have made two relative proposals in effect, Colloquium and Colloquium. The former has been somewhat discussed only, whereas the latter none for two weeks since 2 July, when incidentally User:Abd and User:JWSchmidt began to discuss unblocking of User:Thekohser and later User:Moulton.

Now it turns out that Moulton has indeed wanted to talk with me, most likely regarding my proposals, and that he is highly well qualified and prepared to take them seriously enough, though most others may ignore or neglect them. JWSchmidt and perhaps a few others have tried but failed to have him unblocked. Even his desperate attempt to keep in touch with me was refused to the disadvantage of the proposals on the one hand, however consistently according to the relevant policy it may have been done on the other hand!

On these grounds, I dare to ask the WMF's authorities concerned to immediately unblock any blocked WV users who promise to do their best to help make any of my proposals a success. Otherwise, I cannot help but judge that the WMF would not only refuse but also obstruct my proposals to be embodied on the WV. This is an ultimatum.

-- KYPark [T] 07:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that User:Thekohser and User:Moulton should be unblocked and allowed to participate at Wikiversity. The banhammer only disrupts the Wikiversity mission. Enforcing bad blocks against Wikiversity community members violates the spirit of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 09:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Active listening.OGG|thumb|right|Audio made using [[Wikiversity:Teamspeak|Teamspeak]]. This is an example of using teamspeak for language learning (active listening). User:Moulton, User:Sundance Raphael and User:JWSchmidt can be heard.]]Moulton is a valuable Wikiversity community member and I am outraged by how he has been treated here at Wikiversity. Progress towards my learning goals has been disrupted since Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus. Even today Wikiversity continues to be censored by a rogue sysop who is disrupting Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. Not a single sysop will even attend to a routine Custodial task that would advance my learning goals. Why is Wikiversity under the boot of a few rogue sysops who disrupt learning at Wikiversity (and the #wikiversity-en chat channel) rather than facilitate the learning process? --JWSchmidt 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of trolling
Historically, Wikimedia functionaries have used the uncivil label "troll" to condemn Wikiversity community members. Such condemnations have often been followed by additional harassment and by bad blocks imposed without justification. User:Cormaggio has made these statements at Colloquium: "I believe JWSchmidt has been allowed to dominate such discussions by trolling" and "I don't know why some people are so keen to "rehabilitate" people like Moulton and Thekohser, both of whom have long track records of trolling". Cormaggio, please list examples of Moulton's trolling or retract your accusation that Moulton has a long track record of trolling. --JWSchmidt 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
Proposals for how to improve Wikiversity procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.

Some related proposals are on another page: see also: 8. Official policy on consensus, 9. Official policy on blocking
 * Rollback Policy Fix
 * Policy for IRC chat
 * Privacy Issues
 * Truth in Advertising
 * Vandalism
 * Page Deletion
 * CheckUser rules

 * There is another page for Policy development proposals

New Proposal
add you proposal here

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


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Outside interventions

This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission.

Note: This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Note: This review is a work in progress. Note: Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. Note: Related review topics have been moved to separate pages:
 * Threats to the Wikiversity project
 * Moulton
 * Policy development
 * Many links were broken when these subpages (above) were created. If you click on a link and it does not take you to the correct page section, the link is no longer to the correct page.

Outside intervention

 * 13 March 2010 User:Jimbo Wales deleted Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments
 * This was an out-of-process page deletion. The Wikiversity community knew about this page and knew it was a harmless learning project, but it was deleted by an outsider who made no attempt to first engage in Wikiversity community discussion. The deletion was instigated by a Wikipedian acting at Jimbo's Wikipedia talk page.

 * 13 March 2010 User:Jimbo Wales blocked Privatemusings
 * This block imposed from outside with no Wikiversity community discussion.

 * 15 March 2010 User:SB Johnny desysopped by User:Jimbo Wales
 * A Wikiversity Custodian was emergency desysoped for following Wikiversity community procedures. An outsider made no attempt to involve the Wikiversity community in a discussion of the Custodian's actions.

 * 16 March 2010 User:Jimbo Wales blocked Thekohser
 * This block was imposed from outside with no Wikiversity community discussion.

 * August 2008 Censorship of Wikiversity "per foundation directive".
 * It was later revealed that there had been no "foundation directive" only unwelcome and destructive intimidation of Wikiversity Custodians by outsiders.

 * December 2008 User:Jimbo Wales deleted User talk:Moulton, protected User talk:Moulton [create=sysop] (indefinite)
 * This was an out-of-process deletion (did not involve community discussion at Requests for Deletion) of Wikiversity content imposed from outside the community.

 * September 2008 Removal of User:Jon Awbrey user page content by User:Mike.lifeguard who cited the authority of another wiki.
 * September 2008 User:Jimbo Wales blocked Moulton. This bad block was made against consensus (Wikiversity custodians refused to make the block) and was called for by Wikipedians. The block was imposed without any attempt to first allow the wider Wikiversity community to make the decision.

Topics for discussion
Will Wikiversity always be subject to these kinds of out-of-process deletions of Wikiversity learning resources, blocks of Wikiversity community members and emergency desysoping? If a Wikipedian does not like a learning resource or a Wikiversity community member can they just arrange a deletion? Is there anything that the Wikiversity community can do about these interventions? Does Wikipedia control the fate of Wikiversity? How many Wikiversity participants have stopped or curtailed their participation at Wikiversity because of these interventions? Can Wikiversity recover and grow as long as such interventions continue? Can the Wikiversity community now safely undo all unwelcome interventions from outside?

Questions about outside interventions

 * 1) Are Wikiversity custodians responsible for outside intervention?
 * 2) Are Wikiversity custodians responsible for a person's actions?
 * 3) When are Wikiversity custodians responsible for a person's actions?
 * 4) Why are Wikiversity custodians responsible for a person's actions?
 * 5) Why are Wikiversity custodians responsible for Jimbo Wales' actions?
 * 6) Why are Wikiversity custodians responsible for Mike.lifeguard's actions?
 * 7) Why are Wikiversity custodians responsible for SB_Johnny's actions?
 * 8) What responsibilities do Wikiversity custodians have for a person's actions?
 * 9) What responsibilities do Wikiversity custodians have for Jimbo Wales' actions?
 * 10) What responsibilities do Wikiversity custodians have for Mike.lifeguard's actions?
 * 11) What responsibilities do Wikiversity custodians have for SB_Johnny's actions?
 * 12) How are Wikiversity custodians responsible for a person's actions?
 * 13) How are Wikiversity custodians responsible for Jimbo Wales' actions?
 * 14) How are Wikiversity custodians responsible for Mike.lifeguard's actions?
 * 15) How are Wikiversity custodians responsible for SB_Johnny's actions?
 * 16) Are Wikiversity participants responsible for outside intervention?
 * 17) Are Wikiversity participants responsible for a person's actions?
 * 18) When are Wikiversity participants responsible for a person's actions?
 * 19) Why are Wikiversity participants responsible for a person's actions?
 * 20) Why are Wikiversity participants responsible for Jimbo Wales' actions?
 * 21) Why are Wikiversity participants responsible for Mike.lifeguard's actions?
 * 22) Why are Wikiversity participants responsible for SB_Johnny's actions?
 * 23) What responsibilities do Wikiversity participants have for a person's actions?
 * 24) What responsibilities do Wikiversity participants have for Jimbo Wales' actions?
 * 25) What responsibilities do Wikiversity participants have for Mike.lifeguard's actions?
 * 26) What responsibilities do Wikiversity participants have for SB_Johnny's actions?
 * 27) How are Wikiversity participants responsible for a person's actions?
 * 28) How are Wikiversity participants responsible for Jimbo Wales' actions?
 * 29) How are Wikiversity participants responsible for Mike.lifeguard's actions?
 * 30) How are Wikiversity participants responsible for SB_Johnny's actions?
 * 31) Are Wikiversity custodians accountable for a person's actions?
 * 32) Are Wikiversity participants accountable for a person's actions?
 * 33) Are Wikiversity participants accountable for a custodian's actions?
 * 34) Who is accountable when consensus is enforced?
 * 35) Who is accountable when Wikiversity community consensus is enforced?
 * 36) Who is accountable when Wikimedia-wide community consensus is enforced?
 * 37) Who is accountable when a Wikiversity community decision is enforced?
 * 38) Who is accountable when a Wikimedia-wide community decision is enforced?
 * 39) Who is accountable when a Foundation decision is enforced?
 * 40) Are people lying when they write an issue is cross-wiki issue?
 * 41) Are people lying when they write an issue is a Foundation issue?

-- dark lama  13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * So someone who at one time had sysop tools here allowing him to delete pages and block editors made some actions considered inappropriate by some, in 2008 and in March 2010. Some of these actions stand, some not. Those actions in several cases set a default status quo, which we could change at any time. We have begun to change it, but JWS, initiating this complaint, has not cooperated with or supported these changes and has, in fact, disrupted them to some degree or other. --Abd 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "JWS, initiating this complaint, has not cooperated with or supported these changes and has, in fact, disrupted them to some degree or other" <-- Abd, can you explain what you are talking about? --JWSchmidt 05:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * It occurs to me that the out-of-process interventions that began here two years ago have been largely unaddressed and unremediated. The undeniable effect has been to sunder the community.  Already two custodians have left to start their own separate forks of Wikiversity.  The second such departure was significantly more fractious than the first one.  It's not obvious to me that the damage can ever be repaired.  Perhaps it can only be studied so as to avoid anything comparable happening on alternate sites.  Barry Kort 05:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
Proposals for how to improve Wikiversity procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.

Some related proposals are on another page: see also: 8. Official policy on consensus, 9. Official policy on blocking
 * Rollback Policy Fix
 * Policy for IRC chat
 * Privacy Issues
 * Truth in Advertising
 * Vandalism
 * Page Deletion
 * CheckUser rules

 * There is another page for Policy development proposals

New Proposal
add you proposal here