text:
Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/10

Community Review/Ottava Rima 2
The Review has been archived. --mikeu talk 16:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to be dragged in under the false umbrella of a CR while it is clearly personal. Guido den Broeder 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as keep. CRs that have been highly personal have been allowed. If the CR were inappropriate, a speedy close of the CR would be appropriate, not deletion. This nomination is disruptive. This is a CR which has already attracted participation from the filer and the respondent, as well as confirmation as covering an issue of important by another editor (me). --Abd 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete - personal attacks, false claims, lies, posting of content prohibited by the privacy policy, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all this crap, DRAMA QUEENS You just never learn. Shame on you. ¬¬ Diego Grez 19:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep - Close if not appropriate. Delete is not the correct action. Dinsdale 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is not appropriate, what purpose would keeping serve? Guido den Broeder 21:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Dinsdale is a sock puppet. His references to !!, Essjay, and other individuals who have been gone for a long time, his statements about WR, his targeting of Durova, PeterDamian, etc, all suggest tha his almost nil contributions are not from a new person. Just ignore him. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottawa, please stop with your personal attacks. Troll and sock are both personal attacks barring conclusive evidence. You are not an admin. You cannot decide who will participate. Dinsdale 23:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sock puppet" is not relevant on Wikiversity, unless Ottava is prepared to show that he's a sock of a banned user here. Do we have any banned users at this point? There might be some old blocks hanging around..... Ottava did not complain when his friends, with no WV edits, voting in the various processes to defend him and to attack anyone inconvenient to his agenda. Dinsdale has the right to comment. So do Guido and Diego. We don't !vote, anyway, right? --Abd 23:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 'No WV edits': that's offending. What's this shit? Diego Grez 23:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you, Diego. You had WV edits, you'd worked here as a probationary custodian, etc. Diego, you are not reading clearly. Words are always susceptible to multiple meanings. You can pick meanings to make someone wrong, and you can pick meanings that can make someone right. Read what I wrote again. Can you read it to make me right? --Abd 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you think a sock puppet whose only edits is to harass people cross wiki would be appropriate regardless of the master? Single Purpose Accounts aren't acceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava, this is the 4th or 5th time you've made these baseless accusations. Back them up, refactor them or get taken to task. These charges without evidence are personal attacks. Dinsdale 07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above user has been proven to be a sock of User:Vigilant, an individual who has gone after me on IPs and other names for over 2 years and has repeatedly claimed to be new and not a sock of an old user. The user was banned on Wikipedia since 2006 for harassing users on multiple names, and he has attacked me and others on 4 projects so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at some of the available evidence.
 * I do not see a claim by Dinsdale to be a "new user."
 * Dinsdale is probably Vigilant, but who Vigilant is, we don't know. Vigilant was only active for a short time, and was not banned. Vigilant was blocked, as critics of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editorial practice are often blocked. SPAs have no protection on Wikipedia.
 * All editors, including critics of the WMF and of individual WMF editors, are welcome on Wikiversity. SPAs are welcome. All editors, regardless of history, are expected to follow WV guidelines. WV guidelines on civility and process have been so widely disregarded that we should be vary careful not to start enforcing them selectively. I have not seen anything from Dinsdale, however, as Dinsdale, that strays outside of what should be allowed.
 * Academic freedom requires that WV be much more inclusive than the other wikis, which have more focused purposes. We still need to consider the welfare of other wikis, and avoid the abuse of Wikiversity to attack editors who are not participants here. However, criticism of Wikiversity participants, based on Wikiversity editing behavior, must be allowed, provided that it stays within civility and relevance restrictions. That includes me. Ottava had no problem when User:Enric Naval popped into my custodianship candidacy to offer his criticisms and fears. Nor did I have a problem. I could easily have complained that Enric was an "enemy" from Wikipedia, and I could even prove it. But that would be irrelevant. Enric is welcome on Wikiversity, and is welcome to express his opinions and concerns. As is Dinsdale.
 * My research was not deep enough to confirm some of what Ottava claims. His claims, however, are, here, ad-hominem arguments and are thus personal attacks. As with much of his behavior, if Wikiversity administration were functional, he'd be warned and blocked. There is no chance, AFAIK, that Dinsdale will be blocked, unless he gets much more uncivil.
 * Thus this argument about sock puppetry and Dinsdale's alleged history is purely a distraction, argument for the sake of argument, derailing the RfD. I have therefore collapsed it.

 * Comment - This CR doesn't strike me as any more or less appropriate than other CRs focused on specific users. Attempts could be made to improve the page and/or discussion about it could take place on talk pages. Attempts could also be made to improve the CR process e.g., Community Review/CR process discussion and Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions.
 * Except that it is merely a duplicate of Ottava Rima 1 which was already resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a content judgment. The goal of Ottava 1 was desysop, basically. The stated goal of Ottava 2 is ban. Has proper evidence been presented? Maybe, maybe not. It just opened up! I'll remind people that Ottava, when he opened up the "confirmation hearing" on SBJ, was screaming that people were "going to be blocked" for ... commenting in his hearing, protesting the process. And ... why not just let it proceed? Why this disruptive RfD? With Diego Grez calling everyone Drama Queens. Very dramatically! Who opposed sanctions on meta for Ottava? Who supported Ottava's process when it targeted me? Diego Grez and Guido den Broeder. Hmmm... pattern here? --Abd 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The goal? But you expressed time after time that you didn't propose desysop or intend it. Which is it? Your stories are changing again. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't file Ottava 1. What I'd written as a draft did not state a goal. I'm not sure that SBJ's version did either, but the concern was obvious. Very poor behavior, massive incivility, not compatible with being a sysop, especially combined with some level of abuse of tools, and threats of such use. Ottava 2 is now about your behavior as an editor, not as a sysop. It's a bit clumsy, I'd have focused only on very recent behavior, after the desysop and some time for you to settle down. Remember, Ottava? You were ready to totally retire, you wanted all your stuff deleted. It seems you did settle down, a bit. But then Jtneill offered to mentor me and, when that finally happened, and you couldn't stop it directly, you went ballistic, here and at meta.
 * In fact, because you never recognized the incivility that you'd been warned about, back then, you probably should have been sanctioned for it, restricted in some way. But we don't do intermediate sanctions, not yet, anyway. Problem.
 * No story has changed. In any case, I've filed RfArs on Wikipedia examining admin abuse, successfully. I didn't ask for desysop, I pointed to the behavior. If the admin in question had simply recognized that there was a problem, and promised not to do it again, there probably would have been no problem. Wikis, properly, don't punish, they protect, only. Of course, people being people .... but that's the theory, and I believe it's the best way to go. --Abd 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For a lot of words, you failed to explain why you contradicted yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not contradict myself. The contradiction is a hobgoblin that lives in Ottava's mind. Further, it's irrelevant. this is a continuation of Ottava's ad-hominem arguments. He attacks fact and evidence and argument by attempting to impeach the individual presenting them. On IRC, Ottava argued that ad-hominem arguments are not "personal attacks," contradicting the plain meaning of "ad hominem." He argues that character is relevant, which may be true when considering uncorroborated testimony, under some conditions. But following his principle, I could counter anything Ottava says by pointing out his history elsewhere, his alleged paranoia, motives of revenge, etc. His position leads to endless personal attacks, attempting to impeach the editor, not the arguments. In other words, his belief leads to his behavior as we have seen it.--Abd 15:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency is the hobgoblin of small theories of mind. —Moulton 14:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedy close as keep. This addresses a specific issue: A request for a one year or indefinite block from Wikiversity, a request for a block from IRC on #wikiversity and #wikiversity-en . It includes new evidence not found in the request to have his custodianship removed.  I posted it.  I did ask about three people for help in composing it on IRC, one of whom saw a draft.  The purpose was to be as neutral as possible, with the wider intention of asking less about : Is Ottava a bad guy who needs to be punished? and more about the question of: Should Wikiversity allow Ottava to contribute, knowing that it will result in less involvement from others?  In the short term and long term, do contributors feel Ottava's contributions outweigh the possible contributions of those who avoid Wikiversity because of Ottava's involvement?  That's something that is very much a personal judgement call and it is hard to put that into a community review, where it appears you need to ask for a specific task to be accomplished. --LauraHale 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no grounds for a block and most of your "evidence" is direct fabrication. If you actually had help from anyone on IRC, you would have known that I have an account here under my real name and have also posted my credentials. The only one causing less involvement are people like you who make up lies about others and try to block them for no reason. This is what SB Johnny and others did, and guess what? Unlike you I have brought real users here before. You violated many of our rules and you think it is okay? Seriously? You have some serious issues that can't be solved except through offline help. Stop your fixation. I do love her claims about IRC and the rest when I have 1. never violated any rules and 2. rarely use it. None of what she has stated is based in reality, which is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are ample grounds for a block contained within the charges. If you claim that the charges are fabrications then refute them directly. Do not attempt to short circuit process. Take it to the community review page. Stop the personal attacks. Dinsdale 07:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete The comments so far have not changed my mind. There are many things wrong with this 'CR':
 * We have only recently had Community Review/Ottava Rima. The fact that LauraHale is asking for a different action is not a valid reason to start a new CR so quickly and can well be seen as harassment; at the least it shows little respect for the community, that has better things to do than to reiterate the same stuff time after time. LauraHale had plenty of opportunity to add to the previous CR.
 * Ottava Rima has been blocked in the manner LauraHale is asking for very recently, and was subsequently unblocked because the community did not think his behaviour warranted a block. Nothing new has happened since.
 * We are in the middle of designing a standard format for community reviews at Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions. LauraHale's attempt at a CR does not come close. Specifically, there is much support that a CR should be narrow in focus, and that the intitial statement should be brief. Further, no questions have been formulated for the community to answer, but LauraHale jumps straight to a proposed measure. This page looks like an attempt to construct an exhaustive, but very subjective rapsheet, rather than a review. Basically, it holds nothing for the community to respond to. Guido den Broeder 10:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Meta-Comment - traditionally, the nominator does not add a comment to look like an independent !vote. That "delete" should be changed to "comment." Given how contentious Guido has been, I'm not going to do it.... --Abd 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. Valid community discussion.  If it is derailed beyond repair, close and NOINDEX it. John Vandenberg 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Valid? You haven't shown how any of it has been valid nor have you made any points related to Wikiversity standards. This is not a vote where you blindly throw in support to one side or another. Your statements on WR make it clear that you are seeking retribution for me exposing your aiding of Poetlister as no mere accident bu 7 months of pure abuse of your position. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And Ottava plays, *competely unexpectedly* the victim card again Dinsdale 04:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep, as above. Valid, and hopefully, useful discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has made no valid contributions to Wikiversity and his only purpose has been to harass. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:John Vandenberg/IRC logs/Ottava - misc/2011-02-01
Should this be deleted? Previously nominated for speedy deletion twice despite objections. -- dark lama  15:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Policy is clear speedy delete. No way around that. There was no permission to log or post it. Private policy was made to ensure that IRC logs were not posted as all use of IRC logs is intimidating, incivil, and done to harass other users. People need to cut it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From the log as posted:
 * Feb 02 09:32:53 this is all going public Ottava - if you are unhappy with that, please stop
 * Feb 02 09:33:04  Go post in public
 * That looks pretty cut-and dry. --SB_Johnny talk 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Post in public does not mean put a private chat log in public. It means for him to post on my user talk page. Never once did I say he had the right to reveal private chat logs. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Obvious concerns: revert warring on speedy deletion tags, deletion practice is clear: add speedy tag for uncontroversial deletion. Ottava believed deletion uncontroversial, fine. However, any editor may remove the tag, and then coming here is required.
 * Misrepresentation of permission. Ottava has not denied accuracy of transcript, merely asserting that posting was against policy. As such, the default assumption is that the permission shown is authentic.
 * Tendentious argument contrary to plain sense of evidence. If something can be posted on the user talk page, it is "revealed," the supposedly private log would become public. "This is all going public." And user talk page evidence may be copied elsewhere on-wiki. This is purely preposterous. Yes, Ottava's comment quoted above can be interpreted differently, but Ottava is ignoring that jayvdb stated his intention clearly: stop - I will post any subsequent private comms publicly - you have been warned The above exchange was after that warning. Ottava also wrote: I don't care if you are publicly logging, thus he was not referring only to Jayvdb making his own comments in public, he permitted logs. Obviously, Ottava changed his mind! Too late.
 * Apparent nomination by Darklama who is only asking a question. Deletion should be nominated by someone who supports deletion! The first three items are serious and disruptive. The last is just a minor process problem, but we need clear process on Wikiversity.... --Abd 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no. I said "post on my user talk page" his statements then. Not the log. If he responds to me in private then it is private. If he wants it in public then he should only respond to me on wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And my statement of "not caring" is not saying he has the right to post it, which he does not have the right to post it here. People publicly log without permission but that is not tolerated on Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava, the guy told you repeatedly that he was logging and was going to make the logs public. You chose to continue nonetheless, and told him more than once that you understood that. The irony here is that he was presumably refusing to talk to you in private because he didn't want the discussion misrepresented in the future, but you're misrepresenting it anyway even though it's now public(!), which just boggles the mind. Whether it has any educational value is of course debatable, but arguing that you didn't say what we can see you said is a non-starter. --SB_Johnny talk 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Announcement doesn't imply permission, nor does understanding. That's pretty basic. Guido den Broeder 01:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Go post in public" is very clear. --SB_Johnny talk 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I read it as: "Go post in public, and you'll see what happens when you do that without permission." Guido den Broeder 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When things are done unilaterally, without mutual consent, one of the more likely consequences is Lunatic Social Drama, as first observed by sociologist, Victor Turner. —Moulton 13:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It requires a theory of mind to hypothesize what another person understands. This RfD is evidence that the parties did not arrive at a meeting of the minds. —Caprice 04:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly they didn't. Are you suggesting that any page that shows a lack of a meeting of the minds be deleted? That would be a lot of work :-). --SB_Johnny talk 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not deleted, but considered as a topic for an exercise in Action Research. In particular, I don't recommend that the party with more political power gets to automatically win in an autocratic manner.  To my mind, in an authentic collaborative learning community, it's much better to be autodidactic than autocratic.  —Moulton 13:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete per Ottava Rima Guido den Broeder 19:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? --SB_Johnny talk 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are surprised by this, SBJ? Have you been watching Guido on meta? --Abd 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep User page evidence, not shown to be abusive. --Abd 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence of what? None of it has anything to do with Wikiversity and he only placed it here because he knew it wouldn't have been tolerated on Wikisource and he hoped that those like you would look the other way for some chance to try and harass me. You need a real keep reason, which policy does not provide you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence of user incapacity to function cooperatively. The presumption in user space is Keep. Perhaps he's putting together a Community Review. Perhaps he's thinking of participating in Community Review/Ottava Rima 2. Perhaps.... Ottava, you are beating a dead horse here. You very effectively gave consent. You'll have to show actual harm to the wiki to get this deleted, and you haven't even argued that point. Over. Finished. Give it up. --Abd 22:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A community review of what? It is a Wikisource matter. Stop making things up. Why are you not locked from all WMF websites? Dozens of editors have pointed out that your stalking and harassment of not only me but many others is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Ottava and I are both part of the Wikiversity community, and this often involves IRC discussions. Discussions between community members should be held on the public channels to promote accountability.  I stated quite clearly that I did not want to have discussions with him privately, but he persisted.  So this is the simplest way of ensuring that the rest of the community is aware of what was said.  In addition, this content of discussion is relevant to Wikiversity as Ottava imported the Jack Merridew issue here and it is an ongoing discussion at Community Review/Ottava Rima 2 - e.g. .  p.s. doesn't Wikiversity expect that I am notified on my user talk of discussions like this? John Vandenberg 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should certainly have been notified. Abd 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, given what's been going on, such normal courtesies are a bit much to expect! Darklama should have notified, I'll agree. He's a bit perplexed by this situation, based on conversations in IRC. Why can't people just get along? Well, the subject IRC log, and the others in the Community Review filed by Laura Hale, give us some clue. --Abd 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) My original comment was redacted by Guido den Broeder. Considering his objection, I've restated it.
 * Odd how you claim it relates to Wikiversity when it clearly does not. It is about you allowing multiple socks to edit Wikisource knowingly and then knowingly aid him in running for admin on a clean account without telling the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you, perchance, be talking about user:poetlister, who is now editing Wikiversity? To the best of my knowledge, based on the checks I ran on Wikisource occasionally through 2010, Poetlister did not edit with multiple socks on Wikisource.  How do you know that he is not editing Wikiversity with multiple socks?  I did not allow Poetlister to run for admin on Wikisource; that decision was made by the crats on Wikisource.  I am guilty of not telling the 'crats about the emails that I knew he had sent from his old socks.  Please get your facts right! John Vandenberg 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You had multiple emails from multiple accounts with markers denoting they came through Wikisource media interface plus you even said you had information he was socking. Session Start: Fri Jun 11 23:59:56 2010 [00:08] im currently investigating another set of Poetlister socks and that matches up with the time that you knew he restarted as Longfellow. So, harassing Wikisource users on multiple email accounts that have a long and known negative history while making "clean" edits on another account you knew about and allowed to run for admin. That is a serious problem, especially when you claimed multiple times you were "dealing" with it, "contacting" people, etc, which you never actually did. What you have done is nastily retaliate against people who were harmed by Poetlister and who thought you could be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep Part of the community review regarding Ottava cites that he tries to use IRC and Wikipedia Review in order to go around Wikiversity channels to get the outcome he desires. These logs are an important part of demonstrating that narrative. --LauraHale 00:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The log has nothing to do with Wikiversity or the Wikiversity so it is not evidence of anything. Stop making things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep permission was obviously given. A later, abortive attempt to retract the permission is just silly. Ottava, if you don't like people posting IRC logs then stop conducting your back channel politics there. Try doing everything on wiki for a change. Dinsdale 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above user is a cross wiki banned user since 2006 who has been harassing me for years and socked on Wikiversity. Why he is still allowed to even edit is baffling. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above user is a cross wiki banned user since (when did he get banned at en.wikipedia?) who has been harassing me for (weeks) on Wikiversity. Why he is still allowed to even edit is baffling.Dinsdale 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd how I can harass you when you are the one following me and starting things on me without any actual history or work anywhere on the WMF outside of such outrageous behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But, according to your previous post, I've, allegedly, been doing this harassing of you for years. And yet, you only can post a single diff in support of your statement. Inquiring minds wonder - is your word to be trusted? Dinsdale 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I posted one diff to show that you've been doing it since 2009. Here is another. Odd how you followed me with such gaps in time, except that it isn't your only name and only IP used. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a prodigy. I can stalk and harass 'for years' in two short, unrelated comments. Perhaps you should try being a bit less disingenuous and thin skinned?Dinsdale 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dinsdale isn't the only name you currently have, and your IP has created other names on various projects. And what a coincidence you are claiming exists where "two unrelated comments" are made by you on me, where you supposedly came to Wikiversity with no previous history to make some claims. Your defense is irrational and random hatred? Seriously? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep (I just did). I'd not seen this until just now. This is typical of Ottava; he smears people who have somehow offended him. When the Horace piece was being ported to, I had cordial emails with Ottava about it; he was fine with the idea, thanked me, and asked if there was anything he could do to help. I didn't steal anything from him; he got plenty of acknowledgment. What offended him, was that I reverted him a few times on en:wp when he was being disruptive. This, of course, was after I was unbanned there and just before he got his ban. If Ottava has an issue re Horace, he should bring it up at Wikisource. To the best of my knowledge, he's not mentioned it at all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sole purpose here has been to harass me and you claim I smear people? I was never fine with it nor did I give you any permission to use -my- work for your run for adminship. You are a nasty person who used many sock puppets to harass many users. Hell, your post above has nothing to do with the page in question nor about anything pertinent. That just verifies that you blindly attack people without any clue about what you are talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And Ottava plays, *competely unexpectedly* the victim card again. Someone call a grief counselor, STAT! Is there anyone here, except yourself, who isn't stalking and harassing you? Or is it just those who disagree with you? Dinsdale 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 On 8/31/08 1:29 AM, {Ottava Rima} wrote: > David, > > Thank you so much again. If there is anything I can do, just say. > > Sincerely, > {Ottava Rima} > > -Original Message- > From: Jack Merridew [mailto;{jack merridew}] > Sent: Sun 8/31/2008 1:01 AM > To: {Ottava Rima} > Cc: John Vandenberg > Subject: Re: Index:The works of Horace - Christopher Smart.djvu > > Hi {Ottava}, > > I was off yesterday; another holiday in Bali and every shuts down. I'm > going to crank on the rest today and will then put together the > presentation layer so it can all be viewed as a finished piece. > > Cheers, > > David > > p.s. John whom you been chatting with nudged me in this direction. > > {Ottava Rima} wrote: > > David,
 * have some email: be glad I redacted your name and old email address.

> > That sounds great. If there is anything you need from me, just ask.

> > Thanks, > > {Ottava Rima}

> > -Original Message- > > From: Jack Merridew [mailto;{jack merridew}] > > Sent: Fri 8/29/2008 11:53 AM > > To: {Ottava Rima} > > Subject: Index:The works of Horace - Christopher Smart.djvu

> > Hi,

> > I'm copy-pasting w:en:User:Ottava Rima/Wikisource to the page space at wikisource; I've got a local copy I'm working from, so please don't edit the copy on en:wp further. I just finished up to page 200 and expect to do the rest tomorrow.

> > Cheers,

> > David in Bali

> > 'Jack Merridew' is a fictional character

> > --- > > This e-mail was sent by user "Jack Merridew" on the English Wikipedia to user "Ottava Rima"...{yada, yada, yada} Jack Merridew 04:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 * As everyone can see, was given the name "David" and never bothered to see what user account it was from. It also says nothing about him taking credit for my work or running for admin on it. It says a copy and paste only. If I would have known who he was and that he was a banned user who would use my work to run for adminship on another wiki then I would never have agreed to it. As you can see, there was never a notification of my name being used here as it was well known I would have opposed and be very upset that my name and work would be used in that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the above, however, has anything to do with the deletion request, and just verifies that Jack is unable to work appropriately here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 * It's quite plainly marked with my user name. Funny you never mentioned that 'David' *had* contacted you about this very topic. And you've no right to toss my post off into another section, as you did here. Jack Merridew 21:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, seen User:Jack Merridew/Header text? It's offered my given name for years; it's transcluded onto my user page. This was done on a lot of user pages, including the one at s:User:Jack Merridew. oldid, oldid on en:wp, too Jack Merridew 21:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Having your user name does not mean it has anything to do with Christopher Smart. It was about Poetlister and you following me after I complained about John's interaction with Poetlister. 2. Why would I look at your user page? I don't bother with such stuff. John said someone would transfer the content over and I didn't get any information beyond that. It wasn't until much later that someone else showed me through Wikisource and I was able to discover things myself that it was all revealed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep: as agreed by Ottava in transcript. Also no valid reason given for deleting (though I have no doubt the same reasons as above will be repeated below). Userspace is a valid place for posting info related to the Wikiversity project.. Fascinating reading (in the way that a train crash is fascinating - not the good kind of fascinating). --211.30.55.215 12:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate
The keep votes above are all invalid. This log has nothing to do with Wikiversity. It was a private statement between John and I with his abusive manners in Wikisource. The log is embarassing for -him- as it exposes how he has aided multiple sock masters through Wikisource and has repeatedly encouraged them in breaking various rules. Is his log appropriate here in any way? No. It isn't. The people supporting it have no standing as there is nothing within our rules. Their actions are harassing and incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Ottava, is there anything that you could have said that would have made people take you less seriously than what you just posted above? I'm sure John's a big boy who can figure out what he wants to post and whether he's embarrassed by it. I'm also sure that the rest of us can figure out whether we want to cast a vote on whether this log is germane and whether you gave your (obvious) permission to allow posting. Please find a group of weaker minded people to aid in their decision making processes. I, at least, don't need your help with this part. Dinsdale 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, those votes aren't exactly invalid (and it's not really a vote anyway), since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They just shouldn't carry any weight. The community is not supposed to set aside law, WMF rules, or in fact common decency. Guido den Broeder 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as a tax-exempt educational project, the Mission of WMF is to educate children and adults around the world in 21st Century concepts, including concepts of ethical best practices for good governance, due process, civil rights, evidence-based reasoning, conflict resolution, collaborative learning, and fair play. —Moulton 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity does not have in its scope posting of private logs dealing with non-Wikiversity matters done solely to harass. You are not part of our community nor do you have any educational reason to be here. Ottava Rima (talk)  17:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Ottava, please provide explicit rules wherein IRC logs cannot be posted when both parties have given their permission. Oh Ottava, please tell me how "the chief organizer of wikiversity" is in a place to determine who is a valid member of the community and who has a reason to be here. P.S. Your pomposity is showing... Dinsdale 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both parties didn't give permission nor do we host things that aren't for educational projects. And if you aren't here to participate in education you have no point here as it is an educational community. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, it's pretty clear that both parties gave permission. "We" also host things that aren't directly for educational purposes in both the Wikiversity and the User namespaces. --SB_Johnny talk 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose we host something novel in WikiCulture. I propose we host a 21st Century Truth and Reconciliation Process for the express purpose of crafting Restorative Justice. —Moulton 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we do not host things not related to education anywhere. We have a scope. And it is clear I did not give permission. No where can you see "I give you permission". He said he would post in public, that does not mean he would post the chat log in the first spot. The second was a threat to post chat in public and I said I didn't care about his threat because I wasn't talking to him anymore. No permission, nothing to do with Wikiversity, but you have a clear agenda and a history of doing inappropriate things such as writing that #wikiversity would be logged without permission from the community and locking it so others couldn't change it back. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pray, explain to those of us with poor comprehension skills what the following means:
 * *Feb 02 09:32:53 this is all going public Ottava - if you are unhappy with that, please stop
 * *Feb 02 09:33:00  Two elections for ArbCom I busted my ass to help you get in
 * *Feb 02 09:33:04  Go post in public
 * and
 * *Feb 02 09:56:53 as discussed, I am publicly logging. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/IRC_logs/Ottava_-_misc/2011-02-01
 * *Feb 02 09:57:10  I don't care if you are publicly logging, I said what I wanted to say.
 * Is there some problem with our understanding that you were aware that this chat was being logged and you had no problems with it being publicly posted? Dinsdale 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no permission there. You can't threaten someone or say "if you continue to post this will be revealed" and deem that permission. Permission requires consent, not intimidation. There was bullying threats, no consent, and that is very clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullying and intimidation implies that some nameable fear has been aroused. What is the name of fear being around in this instance?  Is it Fear of Exposure?  —Moulton 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Attempting to provoke fear and actually doing so are different. And the "fear" is a violation of privacy, which doesn't require any wrong doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

An Operatic Aria
 Manipulì, manipulà  Manipulì, manipulà  La la la la la  Manipulì, manipulà

Obladì, Obladà
 Inimico Animo Catch an Ego by the Toe  Inimicus Animus What the Hell is all this Fuss? <BR> Inimica Anima<BR> Song and Dance and Tra La La <BR> </Blockquote>

Kailash chander jhinga
Kailash chander jhinga This is a blatant advertising by the user. The same page has been identified and deleted from Kailash chander jhinga on Wikipedia

✅ --mikeu talk 04:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Campus Radio
(For the benefit of the record, this also relates to subpages)

It is proposed that this project (and it's related pages) be removed for the following reasons ...

 * Project is inactive, and has been for some time ( Active contributions on a single subpage seem to be by a single contributor)
 * One of the major contributors is currently indeffed.
 * The scope of the project is given a lack of demand too ambitious.
 * The project raises a number of technical and legal issues, which may not be able to be resolved within the Wikiversity or wider Wikimedia community.
 * Duplication of scope with content generation within other projects.

Sfan00 IMG 13:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

- you are requesting deletion of all of these pages? What are the "technical and legal issues"? --mikeu talk 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Technical Issue - Running a 'radio' stream needs *****loads of bandwidth which is expensive.
 * Technical Issue - Lack of widely used cross platform 'free' web-streaming standard.
 * Technical Issue - Sound quality from non-professional equipment.

 * Legal issue - Copyright controls on recorded media.
 * Legal Issue - You can't easily revdel a broadcast.
 * Legal Issue - There are things you can say on WV, that you CANNOT say on radio even if you wanted to.
 * Legal Issue - Broadcasting certain types of content might not be within the scope of what an organisation like WMF can do

( Like political opinion or religious devotionals for example)
 * Legal Issue - Limitations on age in regard to 'performances'.
 * Legal Issue - Party consent in recordings..

Granted that some of the legal issues, relate more generally to journalism and research ethics than to broadcasting specfically, Could YOU draft a Standards and Practices document for a non-centralised audio collaboration project? Sfan00 IMG 14:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. Projects can become active again at any time and have new contributors. The scope can be refined or refocused. Projects can be done in collaboration with other communities. People interested in Wikimedia Radio could be invited to adopt that project as a basis to get their ideas started. -- dark lama  13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are technical difficulties, they should be explained and ways rounfd them considered. That's what Wikiversity is for.--Poetlister 14:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above legal and technical issues are challanges, but not obstacles to moving forward with this project. There is much that can be learned from the past attempts (documented on the page and subpages) and this is a worthwhile learning exercise to try to revive. --mikeu talk 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; unless any specific piece is in violation of copyright, in which case surely the answer is to delete the offending materiel and not the project en toto. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; per KillerChihuahua except for spelling "material." :-) --Abd 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * easily passes the scope and mission tests, and certainly doesn't seem to be causing harm. --SB_Johnny talk 22:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicable physics articles
A series of encyclopedia articles migrated here from Wikipedia after deletion or rejection. Essentially a personalized view of physics constructed by an anonymous editor. Organized at Category:Inexplicable physics pages.

 * Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Dirac large numbers hypothesis
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Fine structure constant
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitational characteristic impedance of free space
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitational induction
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitoelectromagnetism
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Magnetic coupling constant
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Magnetic monopole
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Maxwell-like gravitational equations
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Monopoles
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Natural scale
 * [Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Neutron star]]
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Planck mass
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Planck scale
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Quantum Hall composite resonator
 * User:Jorge/Quantum Hall effect
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Quantum Inductance
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Selfconsistent gravitational constants
 * Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Solar planets as gravitational resonators
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Stoney mass
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Stoney scale
 * Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Velocity circulation quantum
 * Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Weak natural scale

All of these topics are encyclopedia articles, and as such don't belong here. Each is a copy of a current or deleted Wikipedia article with OR and POV content added; many have previously been deleted on Wikipedia as well. To the extent that they include non-standard ideas, they are not research (and generally not new; just atypical and slightly confused). I don't see anything here useful to a wikiversity course that can't be gotten more effectively straight from the Wikipedia articles on the topic, so I am nominating these articles for deletion. --nomination by Sj 7:07, 7 April 2010
 * It looks like these articles are marked as being mixtures of fact and fantasy. Maybe they could be adapted to a challenge for physics students such as: Can you find what is wrong with this article? These pages might also be of interest to historians of wiki-based encyclopedias. --JWSchmidt 00:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OR and POV are in fine for Wikiversity so I imagine that is why they were copied here. Non-standard ideas are fine too, people can learn from non-standard ideas. I think pointing to the Wikipedia articles on the topic for each page would be a good idea. People can help students to understand concepts that have been confused using the confused aspects as a starting point to build understanding from. If there are parts that are wrong or inaccurate an explanation can help students understand the topic better for students that share similar assumptions or inaccurate understandings. -- dark lama  16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any page can be used as a point of departure for some sort of learning. A page of absolute gibberish could be used in a linguistics class to demonstrate contentless prose.  A page specially designed to mislead and misinform unwary readers could be used by a clever teacher as reading material for a class.  But does that mean that Wikiversity should accept material that is designed to mislead and misinform?  –SJ + > 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, Sj, but I assume you'd recognize the problem with this question. How do you know the purpose of the material, what it was "designed" to do? To avoid "misinformation," in a free academic environment, correct information -- or at least allegedly "correct," should be added. These articles are now categorized as "Inexplicable physics articles," which is a start toward dealing with them properly. If no use for them appears in some reasonable time, they might possibly be deleted, but "reasonable time" could be years, and a tag that allows easily finding all these questionable articles quickly could be used. It could be like a citation-needed template on Wikipedia, and it would be dated. It takes moments to tag an article, and the tag will stick, here, unless there is disagreement, which can then be resolved. Reviewing every page to try to decide if it's "designed to mislead" is an utter waste of time, in the time it takes to file an RfD, many articles could be tagged. The approach below of temporarily blocking the IP to encourage discussion, and, as well, to encourage registration, hopefully with email enabled, is not bad. It might be enough, however, to warn the IP that the articles might be deleted if some usefulness doesn't appear. The IP obviously believes that there is some use for these articles, or that editor would not waste time putting them up.
 * How about a category that is "Proposed for Deletion 2010-4," i.e., April, which would sort nicely, and the category explains that if the cat is not removed by a certain month (April 2011? 2012? There is no need to be short. Actually, the category could give the "expiration date."), the article will be deleted. And, of course, whoever placed that cat would be watching the page, or it might be picked up by RCP or otherwise monitored, and then the usefulness of the page could be discussed. No, we don't want piles of useless pages, but this project is highly "inclusionist," in general. Bots can actually do some of this work, with proper set-up. (Bot monitors removal of cat, adds note to list page. Editor discussing removal/replacement with removing editor adds note on disposition; disputes go, then, through ordinary DR, such as an RfD.) --Abd 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree any page can be used as a point of departure for some sort of learning, which is why deciding what to delete can be difficult. How can we be absolutely sure that a page is designed to mislead and misinform? How can we be absolutely sure that a person isn't genuinely trying to learn or teach? We like to work with what people already know to begin with even if what they know has come about from being misinformed by others in the past or from having been left confused by their teachers, rather than assuming people are empty vessels, which means a different approach to teaching is necessary to help people learn. A good teacher could explain to great lengths the hows, wheres, whens, and whys of student's misunderstandings of a concept or topic. Do you agree? Don't get me wrong, inaccuracies should be corrected, the ways in which inaccuracies can be corrected is just broader on Wikiversity than other projects.
 * I feel as though Wikiversity lacks the structures in place to encourage correcting inaccuracies using the various methodologies that people want to encourage. Wikiversity wants to give pages a chance to become useful learning resources and give people an opportunity to make corrections, but we do not even have the structures in place yet to backup and encourage that approach. RFD is often the first the community hears of problems with a page, which I think relates to not having the structures in place to encourage others to make corrections and fix problems. Other wikimedia projects use templates to encourage contributions and making changes where they are needed, but Wikiversity rarely does that it seems. I think we could be doing a lot more to encourage people to go to great lengths to explain the hows, wheres, whens, and whys of concepts that have been misunderstood on a page, and we could be using templates to encourage that to happen. With more "correct me" templates in place on pages I think what the next step should be when nothing gets done will be a lot easier to agree on. -- dark lama  11:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Another was just added, Electric charge wave. Parts of it have appeared on other places on the internet and there was no attribution to the source. I have temporarily blocked the IP until he knows to stick around and actually discuss the matter. There is no other way to really contact an IP or get their attention. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily blocking the IP sounds like a decent idea. Not really sure what's going on with these. However my vote would be keep, because they don't seem like Wikipedia articles to me and it looks like they could potentially have educational value, even more educational value if someone decided to take them under their wing and correct them or at least give ideas for classroom/independent use. Darklama, your points were also interesting. I agree we need a lot more review-and-correct intiative on Wikiversity. --Trinity507 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Blank (mostly) However, I do propose a "slow wastebasket," an organizational technique I learned years ago. Add a category to these articles, and any article anyone thinks useless, "Proposed for deletion 2012-4", and if the cat hasn't been removed (and stayed removed), they would all be deleted, by bot, possibly, or some kind of assisted editing, in April 2012. The category would explain what this means in detail, allow anyone to remove the cat, once, but not to revert war over it, but to discuss. The guideline might even require removal to be by someone who is registered. Wikiversity should be open, but it should also be efficient. --Abd 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC) !vote changed to reflect better decision, see below.
 * I've reviewed Dirac large numbers hypothesis to some degree, comparing it with the Wikipedia article (I moved the article to match the Wikipedia name). I found at least one example of the article being mangled in the copying, and there were many changes. This created an article with many unexamined differences from the Wikipedia article, but no responsible editor with whom to discuss these changes. What came from Wikipedia could be replaced with a single link to Wikipedia and an invitation to discuss and expand on the topic for learning purposes. If each article is so edited, and I'll do it with the Dirac article as an example, see and, these pages become possible learning resources, and the problems with the changes are avoided, without losing IP's work, for it's in history, and can readily be recovered by anyone.
 * The example I found was that the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article, containing two ratios, was removed in the copy, making the third paragraph, which refers to the two "features" just mentioned, unintelligible. --Abd 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete. These are not "useful learning resources", these are fringe theories and original research presented as established science. While original research is allowed on Wikiversity, it needs to be identified as such, not passed off as mainstream science. Otherwise we are only creating confusion for people actually trying to learn physics. Kaldari 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I like Abd's ideas here. Slow wastebasket? Sounds exactly like what we need for material like this on WV! "Wikiversity should be open, but it should also be efficient." I couldn't agree more. I, by the way, am not very experienced in the world of physics and have no clue whether these are pseudoscience or not; I am going entirely off of the formatting, which is an important springboard around here. I believe that they should be marked as disputed immediately, to save clueless people like me from much embarrassment. =) --Trinity507 03:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been open a long time. I feel the conclusion that can be reached by this discussion is no consensus. I propose closing this as such, and marking all the pages with fringe. -- dark lama  15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No objecting to tagging. I do want to think about what could be called a "long-term prod," proposed deletion that gives a lot of time for something to be developed into a resource, even a year seems short, and that might be accompanied by appropriate categorization. If nobody interested in an area wants to develop an actual learning resource, and nobody wants to study it -- which study would nicely be accomplished by organizing it and placing it in context, and this persists long-term, then, eventually, it should go. Meanwhile, all these pages, if there is doubt about their soundness as to the science, should be tagged as a warning to readers, right at the top. Unverified, might be way-out fringe. Or not. Caveat lector. --Abd 23:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like no clear consensus and that the material should be retained for now with the fringe template. There is some support for tagging the pages for subsequent deletion review down the track but I think any such a system should be raised and discussed separately before implementation. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I created fringe to address the concern above that the pages weren't properly identified as such, not as an attempt to implement any sort of deletion review system. -- dark lama  09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete - most are copies of Wiki pages with nothing to add except that they slip in some unfounded stuff without the desire to actually talk to the community about it. I find it all troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete - These, to my reading, are encyclopedia articles, and would normally belong at WP (with some cleanup) except in this case I believe they are already at WP. Thenub314 22:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete copies of wikipedia and keep unique ones adding in original authors. Well, if they are copies from Wikipedia, they are violating license terms and they should be deleted. But there is an option we can add in the original authors. I.e. delete it as a copyvio and reupload it leaving original authors in edit summary. I would say the focus should be on content, not on how it look like. Does SJ know, how should look like a content of wv and how to characterize it in a few words?--Juan de Vojníkov 06:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well all the works comeing from other projects should be imported.--Juan de Vojníkov 06:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete as a copyright violation. As I see this, it is a copyvio.--Juan de Vojníkov 06:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Slow Wastebasket and Delete Copyvios - I would adopt the PROD solution posed by Abd and set a six month window for people to use this information. Articles not adopted and cleaned up at the end of that window would be open for summary deletion. Any copyright violations should be summarily disposed of. Geoff Plourde 09:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete - Kaldari and Ottava make some good points. Any original work should be clearly identified as such, otherwise a student trying to learn the subject will be misled into thinking that this is a standard interpretation of the subject.  --mikeu talk 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why I created fringe. Anyone can help to identify works not clearly identified. Its not like a failure to clearly identify works leaves no room for improvement. Identifying them is the way they can be improved. Deletion isn't required when students are no longer misled by seeing that the pages do not represent a standard interpretation of a subject. -- dark lama  09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The pages are tagged with Category:Inexplicable physics pages, at the top. The tag could possibly be improved so the warning is more explicit. Other simple organizational devices are possible as well to avoid the real concerns of some voting for deletion. --Abd 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete Copyvioed content is unacceptable, in history or otherwise, and should be deleted and started over. We can always return to them at a later time. TeleComNasSprVen 08:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment: Copying from Wikipedia does not make works a copyright violation. A failure to provide credit is the actual issue, which can be resolved by linking back to the Wikipedia articles the works are based on in the edit summary, with a statement to the affect that the whole work was copied over from Wikipedia, or by importing the pages in question and merging the page histories. Both approaches would ensure proper credit is maintained for license compliance. -- dark lama  09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete Delete because these articles don't seem to fit in with Wikiversity based on statements above. Anonymous Uploader 02:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be no intention of using these pages as learning material. Guido den Broeder 13:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to subpages to make classification clear. I have created Nonstandard physics as a master page for pages of this class, with a link and an explanation on School:Physics and Astronomy. The "inexplicable physics" tags are then redundant and POV, "inexplicable" is subjective. --Abd 16:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved all the pages, see Nonstandard physics. There are users who do not believe that Wikiversity should host anything nonstandard, but our inclusive mission takes us beyond that view. We are required to maintain neutrality, and placing nonstandard original research, and other work that is not necessarily accepted by the mainstream, into a proper context, is how we do that. New users to Wikiversity, accustomed to Wikipedia, often don't understand this. Some work should be done to insure license compliance if Wikipedia articles were the originals. If the Wikipedia article has been deleted, the issue of license is quite confused! I have invited students of physics to review the pages, on the master page. This makes these pages available as learning resources immediately. --Abd 17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I have some remarks about this articles:

 * Gravitational induction
 * Gravitomagnetism
 * Maxwell-like gravitational equations
 * Selfconsistent gravitational constants

For Gravitomagnetism. The reason for the article was the next. In Wikipedia article Gravitomagnetism all the information is given from point of view of general relativity. But the same results take place on the base of Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG), which was developed by Oliver Heaviside. This is also underlined in Maxwell-like gravitational equations. The Wikiversity article Gravitomagnetism has addition which is absent in Wikipedia. For example, here is section “The interaction between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields”, and in the section “Higher-order effects” I add information about properties of gravitomagnetic (torsion) field.

I thought the article Gravitational induction be deleted in Wikipedia. But it was not so, and now are two version: Wikipedia article  Gravitational induction and Wikiversity article Gravitational induction. Up to now no one add information to them, and the articles almost the same.

The articles Maxwell-like gravitational equations and Selfconsistent gravitational constants were carefully edited before to place to Wikiversity. I accept all the question about their mathematics and physical ideas. Fedosin 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Closure
After a year, this discussion is unlikely to result in consensus. As a compromise, I am closing it with a combination of the supported ideas:
 * To avoid confusing readers, it seems pretty well-decided that the pages should remain tagged as dubious.
 * The slow wastebucket idea seems to be popular, so I'll tag them, and they may be deleted in 6 months without further discussion if they are not assimilated into a learning project (including the idea of a project about interpreting misleading articles). I'm not going to put them in a wastebucket category, to avoid encouraging people to add it to other articles. RfD is not the place to propose or establish processes, but it does solve this problem.
 * Unrelated to the RFD, I'm removing the infinite IP block. The solution to unattributed copying of GFDL content is to add attribution and let the user know what is required; It's not to block, and especially not indefinitely.

If this creates enormous disagreement then we can start discussing in a new RfD and keep it short (time-wise). --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I wrote the following while Michael was composing his decision:
 * Proposed close as no consensus, with review of pages for copyvio, individually, as needed, through speedy deletion tags. However, I see no evidence of actual copyvio; possibly pages that were put up elsewhere by the same person have been placed here as educational resources, so the problem can be fixed with attribution, or author permission. Originally, the editing was by IP, but the author appears to be a physicist, an academic, and the idea that this is "inexplicable physics" may reflect only ignorance. Or perhaps the author's ideas are "nonstandard." I moved these pages as subpages of Nonstandard physics on this idea, but it is not essential that the pages remain there; that was a catch-all category to allow consensus to Keep by addressing the argument that students might be misled. This discussion has been open for more than a year now, many of those commenting are not active here, some never were, but Fedosin is now active and available to answer questions and to work on the pages. My original suggestion of blanking is no longer appropriate, and any concerns about copyvio should be addressed on a page-by-page basis, with a custodian working with Fedosin, not here on RfD. It's about time to put this puppy to rest.
 * Note regarding original close. I closed as "no consensus." This was reverted by TCNSV, with the edit summary, (rv; Require closure from a more uninvolved custodian, and regardless of whether or not the situation is "new", copyvio content still remains in pagehistory. Therefore, it is important that deletion of the revisions occur...) First of all, I'm not a custodian. Secondly, our active custodians have mostly commented already, and a custodian is only needed for a Delete close. If there is copyvio, from the beginning, this should not have waited for an RfD close. Copyvio is not normally handled with revision deletion unless there is some egregious violation, and the assertion of copyvio here was shaky to begin with, more easily fixed, if there is a licensing problem, than by a discussion that goes nowhere here. Remember that Wikiversity tries to improve pages, not delete them if they can be improved, and if all that is needed is a credit to an original source.... why are we discussing deletion or revision deletion? --Abd 00:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter
Appears to be someone's promotion/recreation of a fringe theory whose article was deleted on Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Resources on fringe theories are allowed here. Anything in particular you consider problematic? -- dark lama  22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, under WV:D, articles cannot be substantial duplicates of encyclopedic content from other wikis such as Wikipedia, which this so-called resource appears to be. (P.S. I just noticed this, but this appears to be somewhat related to the Inexplicable physics articles section above). TeleComNasSprVen 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that conclusion is as you say this was deleted from Wikipedia, so its not within Wikipedia's scope nor a duplicate of its contents. -- dark lama  22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theory is not a reason for deletion on Wikiversity. Wikiversity can have a resource on a fringe theory. The wiki, overall, is not allowed to be biased, but Wikiversity handles controversy over page bias, generally, through forking or other inclusive measures, as Wikipedia notability requirements do not have to be met, and just as a brick and mortar university might have more than one class on a subject, and more than one professor, and different sets of students, and opinions and points of view may be expressed with relative freedom, quite unlike an encyclopedia.

The biggest problem with the articles in the "Inexplicable physics" category, an ad-hoc name set up by Sj, as I recall, is that there is really no apparent interest in maintaining them. I've suggested a "slow wastebasket" approach that would tag an article with a category, something like, "Delete after [year]", and anyone can remove the tag by contributing to the page. Weird physics can lead to real learning, even if it is totally bogus. The important thing is to tag pages appropriately, and if something is treating fringe ideas as if they were mainstream, and that's clear (not merely a matter of some real-world and substantial controversy), then this could be misleading to students. There is no harm for keeping these articles for, say, a year, leaving them exposed to some possible use. Any user could also userfy them, if they want to keep them, and we should be extremely tolerant of such pages in user space, until, perhaps, the user has been absent for a quite long time and doesn't respond to email -- or does not have email enabled. (It's a bit like the current proposal about inactive sysops. There should be no rush involved!) --Abd 01:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete * If the inexplicable physics articles are deleted shouldn't this one be deleted too? Anonymous Uploader 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They were not deleted! This was a non-argument by a user who is not active here, all contributions have been to RfD. Odd, eh? --Abd 01:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I skimmed through the WP deletion discussion (which was quite divided) and have noted that the article is a translation from Russian and was deleted from Wikipedia. I don't see why Wikiversity can't host an English version of the article which discusses an old and understandable idea about the nature of matter and the universe. I also noted that the author Fedosin is quite responsive and recently responsive (Dec 2010) to discussion. At worst, it should be moved to a user sub-page, but really this is more substantial (whether one agrees with the theory or not) than most pages on Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept is notable, from my personal experience. I was aware of this concept when I was in high school or earlier, that would make it about fifty years ago. "Fringe theory" is a gross oversimplification, and is not relevant to Keep/Delete decisions on Wikiversity. It's more an idea than a theory. My opinion, it's a defective idea as it applies to physics and cosmology, it's really a spiritual idea, "as above so below." --Abd 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page is in good shape and seems well embedded. Fringe, explicability and notability are not that relevant; what matters is that it makes a good learning resource. Guido den Broeder 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed close as Keep. I closed this as keep, with the following comment: Involved close as Keep. Please, the nominator should not reopen this, but any other registered user may do so. --Abd 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)}} Disrespecting the request that the nominator not re-open, TCNSV reverted my close, see Talk.

A Translation of the Bible
This set of pages recently started by user:Poetlister is a duplication of Bible (Wikisource). I suspect it is being started here because Poetlister is now banned on Wikisource (and most other WMF projects). I don't think Wikiversity should host what may become a competing 'wiki bible' unless the project has a clearly different objective and/or methodology. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ..... Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope my ellipses convey the shock at seeing the above and adequately represent a "why is this even here, of course delete" intention. If anything, a bible translation would go in Wikibooks and not Wikiversity. Bible is a book, after all. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The page looks like a great idea for a Wikiversity learn by doing project. --JWSchmidt 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect that most people will be wanting to participate in the Wikisource translation project. A wikiversity project to manage the 'learning' aspects of this would be welcomed, but a Wikiversity project which replicates a content project on Wikisource/Wikibooks is less desirable. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. John, Wikiversity can host multiple competing versions of pages, the WV philosophy and practice is very different from other WMF wikis. We don't generally host simple copies of pages that are also on other wikis, preferring to reference them, but if someone wants to study a topic here, organize a learning project, cooperate in translations, as this project seems to do, it's fine. Ideally, the WikiSource project would be referenced with an interwiki link, and likewise this work might be referenced there. Wikiversity is radically inclusive. One size does not fit all. Not "competing." How about cooperating? If different users have different views, some place like Wikisource requires a single decision to be made about text. Here, we could have a dozen different translations of a passage or chapter. If Poetlister is banned on Wikisource, that is not relevant for us; in fact, we have some tendency to provide a WMF refuge for those who are willing to behave properly here, and we are slow to conclude that someone should be banned. If Poetlister is banned there, all the more reason to allow him to work on this here! One big happy family, John. Okay? --Abd 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikisource is also radically inclusive, and Wikisource have had several instances of multiple concurrent user-contributor translations, where they have had different objectives. Could you provide some basis for "some place like Wikisource requires a single decision to be made about text"? Wikisource is also a haven for people for people banned from other projects, however afaik the only case of Wikisource being used for content which "belongs" on another project is s:User:ScienceApologist/Optics workshop, which was a short term workspace in userspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, John, I was very aware of that SA project and attempted to help with it. However, we have a very different purpose here, the development of educational resources. The very act of working on translations is educational, I can testify, I've done this work with the Qur'an. Translation can be highly controversial, and when there is a single text being developed, the controversies must be resolved, and there are, in these matters, controversies which have existed for centuries or longer. Wars have been fought over them. The project begun by Poetlister here is not equivalent. It might, at some point, have some influence over the WS project, but that's to be determined by those working on WS. Here, he's welcome, regardless, as are they, and this could be quite useful, I'll say, based on my translation experience. Poetlister will not own pages in mainspace, at least not at the top level, and we still have a neutrality policy, but we do it with radical inclusion (as one option). If Poetlister places, at the top level in mainspace, non-neutral material, we can and should fix that, but subpages, my opinion, can be "attributed" as his opinion, as an example. Think of them as student papers submitted to a class. They are clearly the opinion of the student, based on the student's own research or research compilation. They are signed. This is how WV material can be far deeper than is possible on the other wikis, once it's realized how to use the facilities here. --Abd 20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he intends to do a statistical analysis to discover which passages of Genesis are most terrifying when quoted on IRC. —Moulton 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, John, I don't think I read your complete comment. If WikiSource can have multiple translations, fine. I should read more about what Wikisource does. However, Wikiversity is for the collaborative development of educational resources, and educational resources may sometimes resemble what exists elsewhere. Poetlister's project seems within scope here, and that something similar might be done elsewhere is not relevant. I don't understand this "competing" thing, as if users should be forced to work in one place when they prefer another. Poetlister is currently blocked on WS, and so, to me, he is welcome to work on this here. Maybe it will go to WS eventually, or, indeed, "competing" translations will appear, and may the best translation win. If there is some contest. Our goal here is education, often education-by-doing, and the goal at Wikisource is? --Abd 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question Abd. As you might expect, everyone has their own vision of Wikisource and its goals.  You might like to have a look at a video where we touched on this at University of Canberra/RCC2011/Wikisource.  I see Wikisource as a project that is primarily focused on the collection of works within the scope of the project.  For me, the 'learning' process is non-essential for Wikisource, and so I welcome learning projects on Wikiversity which provide and manage that aspect. With regards to competing, my concern is not that there is a learning project happening here, but that this project has been set up to create an entire translation, an enormous project in itself which will take years to complete and should involve more than one person, and its existence encourages other people to participate here, yet only Poetlister is banned.  I would be less worried if this learning project was more focused on personal learning through doing, with a structure which aims to encourage participants carving off a suitable chunk and documenting how to learn through the process. I could morph it into a learning project, however I am hoping that Wikiversity will appreciate that this user has come here rather than commit to abide by some very core user conduct expectations of human decency which they violated recently (as they have done in the past).  Wikisource has previously trusted them to amend their ways, however this time the Wikisource community is wanting a more open discussion and explicit agreement to ensure there is no repeats of this behaviour. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Firstly, I am sure that John will wish to correct his mistake where he says that I am "now banned on Wikisource (and most other WMF projects)". I am banned or blocked (and there is of course a difference) on only five projects. I don't know how many WMF projects there are in total, but there are 22 in my SUL and I am not blocked on 17 of them.

Secondly, the purpose of my project is not to produce a translation for the sake of it. (I do not believe that that is a worthwhile aim when there are so many already available, including some in the public domain.) It is to instruct people in the art of Bible translation, which seems to me to be well within the scope of this site. Further, so far as I can see the translation on WS has no defined methodology, whereas this project will do. Thus it fully meets his criteria that "the project has a clearly different objective and/or methodology".

If John is concerned about pages here that seem to duplicate those on other projects, there are very many to choose from, such as The periodic table, Boron and Solar System, which all duplicate the WP articles and possibly pages on WB. I cannot understand why he has singled out this project.

I quite agree with Ottava that a translation produced for its own sake should be on WB rather than WS, and invite him to propose that the WS project is moved there.--Poetlister 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but as an administrator at Wikibooks, I believe translations (of public domain works) belong at Wikisource. We recently transwikied one to Wikisource (see discussion).  Also, Wikisource:Translations permits translations.  This statement is not a comment on the proper location of this particular resource. Adrignola 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Poetlister, I have no intention of bothering to correct my 'mistake' about how banned you are; you know stats - weight your 22 accounts by suitable methods and you will quickly see the basis for my statement.
 * You used to contribute to the Wikisource translation project; it's methodology never inhibited you then. Don't insult our intelligence by saying your Wikiversity project will have a methodology; if you want to convince me that your intention is to create a useful learning project here, and not a translation for the sake of it, use a few fancy words that demonstrate your existing ability to do that.  To that end, as I said to Abd, I would feel much more comfortable with your learning project if you redesigned it to be about the art of translation, replacing the existing structure with one that can achieve that objective.
 * Over the years, I've also 'singled' out other translation projects on Wikibooks, Wikipedia and Wikiversity for transwiki and/or deletion. It won't surprise you that I care about duplication of Wikisource whereas I am not going to bother with duplication of content on other projects. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete. Per Adrignola, actually. Guido den Broeder 18:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adrignola did not argue for deletion, explicitly, so for the above comment to be worthy of consideration, the argument for deletion should be presented explicitly. --Abd 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See right above. Guido den Broeder 22:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was looking at, Guido. This statement is not a comment on the proper location of this particular resource. He was explicitly abstaining from !voting on this page. --Abd 02:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I am not. Guido den Broeder 02:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, but this then means that you have !voted without providing a reason. He did not give a reason for deletion, because he wasn't urging deletion. You are allowed to do that, !vote without reason, though it does mean that your comment may be deprecated in any close. --Abd 19:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confident that my opinion will count, thanks. Guido den Broeder 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note on Wikisource - in reading John's words, I looked at the current ban of Poetlister. It seems that his known accounts have been "banned" until he reveals all of his accounts and that he would then be allowed to use one account. I would suggest that, proceeding forward, Poetlister does this, has one account, and then is allowed to put up a competing or alternative translation? I don't know, but it seems like there is a simple option over at Wikisource for him to deal with. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Poetlister's alleged behavior at Wikisource is not relevant to his work here, that's clearly established by precedent. Wikisource, in addition, like all WMF projects, has a neutrality policy, but the application of it requires, generally, a single concluded text. Here, we can have multiple translations, for example, and active comparison of them. Sometimes a developed work here can be appropriate for port to another wiki, and that can be considered at the time, and, obviously, the ultimate decision as to what goes elsewhere is elsewhere. There are many complex issues involved in Poetlister's difficulties at Wikisource, and we simply cannot handle them here or make our decisions consequent on them. If he is disruptive here, in a way similar to a manner that he was disruptive elsewhere, that might be considered confirming evidence, but with no disruption here, it's completely moot. --Abd 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Here, we can have multiple translations" - Nothing like that has happened before and your bold declaration to what we can or can't have has no tangible basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? A little imagination goes a long ways. Class on biblical translation. Assignment: students, translate this chapter. Translations are put up as subpages of a master chapter page. Students then discuss the translations and try to find consensus on a single best. But where they cannot agree, they show attributed variations. Ottava, I proposed a project like that for Qur'an translation, oh, it must have been about thirty-five years ago, the idea was to do it by snailmail. One size does not fit all, and a text like the Qur'an can be translated ... well, by tradition, each verse is written in seven dialects, each with seven levels of understanding. It helps to understand that in Arabic, "seven" is a stand-in for "lots of." What I found as I learned Arabic was that absolutely no extant translation was adequate, because the range of meanings of the original could not be captured in a single English sentence. However, by referring to many different translations, more of the meanings would come through. They were generally not possible to express well in a single sentence. All the translations reflect the limited understanding of the translator! It seems that some may have a Wikipedia-like understanding of Wikiversity, where the community *must* choose one "best" text. Now, WikiSource could have more than one translation. What seems to be missed here is that translations generally have responsible authors, it is this person's translation or that person's translation. Or it's this committee's translation, etc. New translation is generally original research. I thought they didn't allow that at WikiSource. But I'm not a a WikiSource editor, as such. They can do what they like. --Abd 02:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wherever did you get the idea that Wikisource must be neutral? You appear to have imagination when it comes to Wikiversity, but still struggle to imagine what is documented at s:Wikisource:Translations.  Consider the various translations needed for Humanity Declaration. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get this at all... Please elaborate... --Anonymous Uploader 03:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just questioning why Poetlister had to resort to this instead of meeting what seems to be easy to handle requirements - using only one account and acknowledging the socks. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Firstly, I am still not clear why the existence of something on WS is relevant to WV. Surely the only question is whether a learning project on the art of translating the Bible is within the scope of WV. John's main argument seems to be an ad hominem attack on me, falsely claiming that I am "banned on Wikisource (and most other WMF projects)". However he spins it, I fail to see how five is a majority of the 22 sites where my account is active, let alone a majority of other WMF projects. Secondly, John seems to agree that this project should remain if it "has a clearly different objective and/or methodology." Beyond question, it has a different objective, to instruct people in the art of translating the Bible as opposed to adding yet another translation to the many already on WS, duplication with which John is entirely happy although I am unaware of any other examples of attempts to produce fresh translations on WS when there are already several existing ones. I believe that it has a different methodology in that the WS project seems to have no methodology at all; no doubt John will rebut that if I am wrong. John says that a WV project to manage the 'learning' aspects of the WS project would be welcomed. By all means let him set this up, and then we can discuss whether the existing learning project is redundant.

John is right that this is potentially a huge project. So is the one on WS, which has been ongoing for some years and has not got very far. If John is inviting me to contribute to it to speed it up, I am happy to do so. It will be interesting to see which is finished first.

John makes further ad hominem attacks on me. I made no edits whatsoever on WS for some time (although I had never been blocked there), then with his encouragement I started again, using only one account. I faithfully kept to all the rules of WS and the letter of our agreement. If this does not satisfy the Wikisource community, then they are difficult people to satisfy. If my thousands of edits to WS are not appreciated, I am sorry.

John claims that "You used to contribute to the Wikisource translation project; it's methodology never inhibited you then". WV is different from WS; I see no need for the WS projec tto have a methodology, since its objects are very different.

"It won't surprise you that I care about duplication of Wikisource whereas I am not going to bother with duplication of content on other projects." I think that is disproved by John's desire to have yet another translation of the Bible on top of all those that are already there. Incidentally, it is interesting that a member of WP ArbCom has so little concern for WP.--Poetlister 09:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised you are wanting an exercise in stats. The rules of Wikisource do not need to include every possible wrong thing - you're actions were a 'wrong' that we dont bother documenting, because any reasonable person would not do it, or even think of doing it.  In addition, the desire of the community that you use only one account was very clear; you were using multiple accounts throughout 2010, albeit some were only used for emailing purposes.  If you wish to resume contributing to Wikisource, s:User_talk:Longfellow is not locked, so you can request an unblock when you have understood, met and agreed to abide by the communities expectations for the future. Also, you still have not described a methodology which is sound and will produce a translation that does not exist, unless of course you mean that this will be a translation where you decide how to resolve the many well known issues involved.  If you can write up a methodology, or at least make a decent start at it, and I don't doubt that you are capable, then we can evaluate whether another translation is a worthwhile endeavour, especially given the need to balance your history and the potential for problems that comes with this project. John Vandenberg 12:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Comments on Ottava I am not banned on WS. I am blocked on WS until I agree to use one and only one account there, or in Ottava's words "meeting what seems to be easy to handle requirements - using only one account and acknowledging the socks".  I have already agreed to this; I have stated that I wish to use the same account as on WV, namely Poetlister.  (If John or any other admin believes that any other account is mine, let them block it.)  Thus logically there is no reason why the account should still be blocked.  However, even if i am unblocked and invited to return, that would not make this project redundant because it has an entirely different purpose.--Poetlister 09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment If this is simply a duplication of the WS project, then it probably should just be merged into that, but I suppose it would be fine if Poetlister wants to work on it in his userspace here while working out his status on WS. On the other hand, if it's more of a learning project (for example, comparing and critiquing a number of other translations and making explicit arguments for why a new translation would be an improvement), that might be better here since it would presumably involve quite a bit of OR.

As far as the block/ban/etc. on WS, I'm not sure that really has a bearing on a deletion discussion, but since it's come up a link to that discussion would help the rest of us understand the background. --SB_Johnny talk 11:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the overlapping scope and structure of this project that I view as problematic. I would be less concerned about a userspace project constructed so that it is primarily to permit Poetlister to continue working here while they are prohibited from participating at Wikisource. Poetlister has been sending out emails via his other accounts, via proxies, and aspects of these emails are disturbing based on what ArbCom and the English Wikisource crats and Checkusers believe to be true.  I have privately asked Poetlister to provide an explanation for these aspects but I have not yet received a response.(Message-ID: <AANLkTikzDQctZetuyDsfBCaVFGmdj3HcbY_U0e=DyAgF@mail.gmail.com>)  Poetlister, please do so in the few days, or give me a timeframe for when you will answer.  If I don't receive any reasonable rationale, I will explain the commonly accepted explanation as I believe it is necessary for the Wikiversity community to evaluate whether or not they should allow this translation project to continue as is with Poetlister at the helm, and the steps they will need to take in order to prevent the serious problems seen elsewhere occurring here.  Given the nature of this, disclosure will allow the community here to evaluate whether "ad hominem attacks" is an apt description of my intentionally vague explanation above. John Vandenberg 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I only edited with one account on WS in 2010 (and with none at all in 2009) so I fail to understand "you were using multiple accounts throughout 2010, albeit some were only used for emailing purposes." I have already requested an unblock on Longfellow, and it is there on the talk page for everyone to see. I have also undertaken to continue using one and only one account on WS, which I wish to be Poetlister. If WS admins do not wish me to resume editing there, although I have done everything requested of me, that is their decision.

My methodology is described on the page being proposed for deletion. It is, as John with his expertise on Bible translations knows, a far more detailed methodology than has ever been published for most Bible translations. If he still wants additional clarifications, it seems more sensible to discuss it on the talk page of the article. John misses the point that this is not another translation for the sake of it, but an opportunity for him and others to study the art of Bible translation by commenting on the methodology and the translation. Since it has a clearly different objective and methodology from the WS one, it should by his own logic be kept. I note that John does not contest that the WS translation is unnecessary because no other work on WS has a user-generated translation as well as several already published ones. Unless and until he can justify that, it is unclear how he can complain about what is happening on WV solely on the grounds that it might be duplication of what is already duplication on WS.

I don't know what private message John refers to. He sent me e-mails on 27 Dec and 8 Jan, but neither seems to be the one he has in mind. He seems to be saying that if I don't respond, he will publish confidential material irrelevant to anything I have done on WV in the hope that it will influence this discussion. I hope that I have misunderstood him. "ad hominem attacks" is an apt description of suggesting that the article was sterted because I am allegedly banned on WS. "I suspect it is being started here because Poetlister is now banned on Wikisource (and most other WMF projects)." John still refuses to withdraw that misleading attack. As he knows, I am not currently banned on WS, although a ban is being discussed.--Poetlister 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed close. I closed this with I'm not seeing sufficient WV user support for deletion. Close as keep, without prejudice. Involved close (!voted)., and that was reverted by Bilby, with the edit summary, Revert close - user was too involved in the discussion to close it. Wikiversity, like most small wikis with low participation, does not insist on strict recusal (which is advisable on larger wikis). Bilby had the right to revert the close, but doing so with an RfD with no consensus, after a month of discussion, based purely on the identity of the closer, creates extended open time without likelihood of a different resolution. Open RfD is harmful, it can suppress resource improvement. "Keep, without prejudice" would probably have better been stated "No consensus." A true and clear Keep close would be "with prejudice," i.e., some level of suppression of renomination without some new reason. --Abd 17:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Train wreck. The nomination here asserted page creator status on other wikis as if it were a support for deletion here. That set up conditions for debate about the user, rather than the page. The long debate, then, tends to suppress further comment. That's why it's better to close this discussion "without prejudice," which would allow a better and cleaner nomination, if someone still wants to delete the page. I presume that Bilby is uninvolved, and he could certainly close this. I suggest it, in fact. --Abd 17:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy covering original translations at en-ws seems to be dead: --mikeu talk 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-pinfo
Close as no consensus. This does not appear to have been a serious nomination. No deletion reason, no support for deletion. --Abd 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Moulton knows better than the message this template gives him. TeleComNasSprVen 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tensils99/Dr. Jagatjit S Kohli
Self-promoting article, deleted many times from Wikipedia under different versions of the name, posted here by one of several sockpuppets of indef-blocked w:User:Dr. Jagatjit Singh Kohli. Parts copied from sites such as http://www.mesotherapy.com/. Posted as an article, marked for deletion as out of scope, userfied in January to give author time to recover text, not touched since. --JohnCD 10:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sock puppet charges are irrelevant here. Today, I'd be more inclined to more actively invite Dr. Kohli to participate in Wikiversity, and a user page like that for a participant makes sense. But the user did not communicate with me when I tagged the page, or on his Talk page, and thus is showing no interest. I am tagging the redirect for deletion, Dr. Jagatjit S Kohli, I left it in place at the time so that he could find his page if he looked for it. We know he's seen the page now because it was probably him removing the speedy tag I'd left. (As a custodian, I did not generally delete pages of any marginal character at all, but would speedy tag them so that a second opinion was required, that of the deleting admin, or sometimes I'd go back weeks later and delete.) --Abd 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * redirect has been deleted. --mikeu talk 13:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete Clearly outside the scope of the project.--Poetlister 08:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete with all haste because of BLP, SPA and other issues. TeleComNasSprVen 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no obvious educational value, appears to be promotional pseudo-encyclopedic mediawiki text from a previous biography, contributor has not responded and has been given time to recover text. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Test, Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Test/ and Portal:Testing
Test pages, no substantial content that I can see. TeleComNasSprVen 06:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete for clean up. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * ❌. Single pages should be tagged for speedy deletion if noncontroversial. I looked, however, at Portal:Test find it used at Make a portal, and the subpages are then used in the Test page as transclusions. Please be careful about deletion requests, check for usage elsewhere through "What links here." Thanks for helping look for excess baggage. --Abd 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Clinical Practice
Both the resource and the portal are unmaintained, and contain little content that couldn't be duplicated on another wiki. TeleComNasSprVen 02:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Pabloruiz
Uploading what appears to be massive amounts of files, from looking at the contribution history, of which most are missing copyright licenses and sources to verify copyright. Some of these look like obvious violations, e.g. File:Inhaler development.png and File:Similarity considerations4.png. TeleComNasSprVen 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The images uploaded will eventually be deleted once the grace period ends. Is the point of this RfD to delete all uploads or contributions ? Geoff Plourde 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of this RfD is to act as a centralized location to view all the uploads by Pabloruiz so that we can monitor and/or debate the deletion of his images if necessary. TeleComNasSprVen 01:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The images I've looked at seem to be likely to be generated by the user, so we are probably looking at a user who does not know how to set up the right licensing. It is possible that some images are iffy, and I don't know about fair use at Wikiversity. I highly recommend more personal support. RfD is not exactly that. I'm not an expert on image rights, but I'll try to get this user's attention. If you look at where these files are being used, it is very substantial Wikiversity work. We should not be quick to damage that. It is not necessarily "obvious" that the inhaler image is copyvio, at all. The user may well be using CAD software. --Abd 04:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the user, requesting comment. --Abd 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TCNSV, I'd think it appropriate to try to communicate with the user before coming here. This is not Wikipedia or Commons, and we really do want to encourage people to build resources here, and Paboruiz seems to be working hard on that. Yes, certain niceties about copyright must be observed, but it's not an emergency, generally. A "debate" is to be avoided, until and unless the issues are clear. They are far from clear at this point. Geoff has pointed out the automatic grace period.... we don't need an RfD to deal with this. The important thing is to get the appropriate information from the user. --Abd 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed the user, and received this reply, quoted in part, I believe the user will not mind:
 * I am a new user on Wikiversity and I actually didn't know how to fill up the copyrights when I uploaded the pictures. Now I understand what the problem is. Most of the pictures were created by me or by a co-worker of mine. Currently we are modifying some pictures and we will also add the copyrights to all of them. I will talk to my co-worker tomorrow and do this as fast as we can. I will keep you informed.
 * This is a nice opportunity to highlight the difference between Wikiversity and larger wikis. Not only can we give individuals individual attention here, we must, if we want to encourage new users to develop educational resources. The focus should have been, from the beginning, how to help this user, not how to get the files deleted or debate their deletion! The lack of response to the templates indicated that the user didn't understand how to respond and needed help. Sending an email was easier than starting an RfD discussion, since the user had enabled email. Sometimes users come here from the other wikis, where this kind of attention either would be more difficult, or, my opinion, structure to efficiently provide such help wasn't developed. So, to help out, these cross-wiki transfers start doing this kind of work. It can be damaging, so we need to work on guidelines that will help ensure that Wikiversity remains a welcoming collaborative community, and then help each other to follow them. --Abd 18:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Proposed close I closed this provisionally with:
 * No specific page proposed, shotgun filing, may have been okay to obtain supportive review, but need not be on this RfD page. Involved closer -- see comment below --, any registered user other than proposer may revert this close to add deletion argument. --Abd 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * TCNSV, the nominator, reopened with the comment below. --Abd 02:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done; there are already several images pending deletion such as File:Imagen1.png that the uploader has failed to address in the proper manner and time, and it is this discussion, as I reiterate what I had said above, that seeks to centralize all the uploads by this one user, and remove the images if necessary from the project. "Shotgun filing" is not an appropriate reason for closure, see. TeleComNasSprVen 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, given that this has been open since November 12. The nominator is asking us to do his work, providing no evidence other than a page with a speedy tag already. Leaving the contributions listing for a user here is like asking the whole community to stalk him, to look at every contribution. Centralized stalking. Bad Idea. This should be promptly closed, it's abusive. --Abd 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Copyright violation. User is copying from a textbook, see etc. and doesn't answer questions (which he would if he were the author of the textbook). Guido den Broeder 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete what? every posting the user makes? Deletion for copyvio doesn't require RfD, unless speedy tags are removed. Got any examples of that? The user did communicate by email, see above. We have a normal process for this. It is not RfD, and it is not RfD with a list of all contributions of the user. If, indeed, the user is uploading pure copyvio, and continues to do this after warning, the user should be blocked.
 * However, the user credits the text Guido points to, as well as other sources. No clear copyvio jumped out at me, but this only leads me to point out that Guido made a serious charge and did not point to specific evidence, I certainly did not review every item, and the user has been cleaning up images that were problems, as requested. --Abd 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice that the user has placed many speedy deletion tags, one I just looked at was over a month old. "Request by uploader" should have been routine. I did try to clean up some of this when I was a custodian, but ... I was a tad busy dealing with the flak. --Abd 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That image is still used in Fluid Mechanics for MAP Chapter 8. Energy Considerations. I'd rather someone replace the image or modify the page, otherwise a deletion will break the flow of the page. (no pun intended) --mikeu talk 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Abd: Having generated the images for a textbook does not automatically make them holder of the copyright. We need explicit confirmation; they could easily be or have been a student or assistant. Crediting does not imply a right to copy. This is a serious matter, which should be resolved more purposefully than has been done so far. Guido den Broeder 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with these issues on Wikipedia and meta. Nailing down copyright can be so cumbersome as to be a practical impossibility. We should exercise ordinary diligence and simple process. If the user claims copyright, and there is no clear evidence to the contrary, we are legally covered unless we get a take-down notice, which OTRS will handle. At this point, the entire textbook cited is on the web with no copyright notice at all. One step at a time. The user has added deletion tags to files, it would seem to be rude to block a user who is obviously attempting to cooperate. You want to deal with it more purposefully, do so. This is not the page to request user blocks, that would be Request custodian action. This page is for specific controversial deletions, where a speedy tag was removed. This filing was abusive, as presented. The reopening by the nominator was abusive. A general claim that pages should be deleted, on general principles, without specific evidence, is abusive. I closed, I'm done with this. I asked for speedy close above, and, given the objections, it should be by a custodian rejecting the vague deletion request. --Abd 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where did I request a block? And where did the user claim to be the copyrightholder, for that matter? Please spare us these baseless tirades. Guido den Broeder 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User claims to be originator of much material being uploaded. For example, most recent upload, File:IF13-2.png. If we were talking about a specific file, this would be clear. As to block, Guido wrote, "resolved more purposefully," implying stronger action than simply listing the users contributions display here, implying that it's all a problem. If a user is uploading copyvio and continues after warning, this is a legitimate basis for a block. And this page is not the place to request or deal with that. I gave the page. This filing is bad process, from the beginning, and that then creates useless discussion. "Tirades" if you must. TCNSV, the nominator, reopened this, there is a reason I disapprove of nominators re-opening after close. This is it.
 * Guido, you !voted "speedy delete," but you did not specify the page(s) to be deleted. Every contribution of the user? You asserted copyvio but did not assert specific proof, which is very serious. If you believe any page or image is copyvio, you may tag it for speedy deletion. Some pages are already tagged. By the user! --Abd 18:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not imply that at all. The purpose is to remove the copyright violation, not to block users. Maybe they simply did not now much about copyright, and were acting in good faith. Have they even been warned? Have things been properly explained to them??
 * Yes, I mean all the user's contributions, which is the current request that I am responding to. No point in tagging everything first. What you can do is ask the user better questions, on the off chance that they are legitimate, which should have been done in the first place, But that'd better been done quick. Meanwhile, they seem to have replaced some of the images with redrawings, rather than adding copyright info to the existing images, which is rather telling and places the burden of proof on them. Guido den Broeder 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guido, what's your goal here? Why do you care about copyright, enough to accuse the user of copyright violation without making any specific claim? You have just pointed to a book without giving page numbers and reference to what was allegedly copied from it. Notice, above, a 'crat doesn't want to quickly follow an author speedy deletion tag because it will break an image being used, he wants to give more time. That's the Wikiversity attitude, generally. Are you here to help, or to hold a user's nose to the grindstone? --Abd 02:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

School:Slavic studies; Topic:Slavistics; Portal:Slavistics
Redirects to recently deleted article.--Poetlister 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poetlister, this is not a controversial deletion. Please use a template for these. Thanks for helping clean up Wikiversity. --Abd 15:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Geoff 03:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Recovery Psychology
Out of process deletion, with an orphaned talkpage still left intact. For the purposes of our copyright policy, I propose the page be undeleted to allow redirection of the content to Reverse psychology. TeleComNasSprVen 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Recovery psychology (note the lowercase "p" which differs from the completely different page Recovery Psychology which uses uppercase "P") is not the same topic as Reverse psychology. I've undeleted the page for review. Note that the original speedy delete reason was "not an education resource; if cleaned up, suitable for wikipedia's w:user:recovery psychology..." I think that the link in the above quote was intended to point to an old version of User:Recovery_Psychology or w:User_talk:Recovery_Psychology. See also contributions from same username here and Category:Recovery psychology. --mikeu talk 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

✅ --Abd 02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:No calculations
This category does not exist but pages are in it. I propose all pages in this category be deleted because they appear to have been abandoned and replaced by their authors with a different approach, and are not linked to from anywhere. Before being abandoned and replace, I believe all the pages use to be part of HHF. -- dark lama  13:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be useless attempts at mathematical resources. I have also requested Thewinster to comment on this matter, as he is the originator of most of these pages. TeleComNasSprVen 22:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thewinster hasn't been active in over a year and their last actions were to blank some pages. Hopefully a response will be forthcoming. How long do you propose we wait for a response? What do you propose be done if no response is forthcoming? -- dark lama  11:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Why the fuck is this discussion still open? Anonymous Uploader 04:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Wow, I've been going through some of those and that is a lot of content. I find some of it baffling. This was posted by CQ using the same template. Perhaps this was done to have a system like Yahoo Answers? I think these should be broken down and merged into one big help desk archive and then deleted. Does that sound reasonable? If we do want a Yahoo Answers type system, we should integrate it into the Help Desk in some way. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I do like the HHF on its own but not as many pages. If it could be linked with the Help desk that would be good and then have questions all on one page with archives. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment: I think this category as well as Category:No solutions should become sub-categories of Category:HHF. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thewinster is responding on his talk page. Guido den Broeder 13:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Non-free media rationale
Close with Suggest fix per Jtneill and Guido den Broeder. No consensus for deletion. --Abd 02:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Fairuse rationale. Don't see the need to protect the page either. TeleComNasSprVen 02:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Note the bold title on "fairuse rationale" and how it's not a match to the template title. Whichever template holds the current format should be retained, with a redirect pointing to that format at Template:Non-free media rationale.    It's bad practice to have the other name be the primary location.  It encourages labeling of images as "fair use images".  There is no such thing.  They are non-free images and it is the way they are used that is called "fair use".  Widely used templates are protected to prevent easy vandalism to large numbers of pages. Adrignola 14:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not one of the "widely used templates"; in fact, there are only two instances of its use. In any case, one or the other should go; we shouldn't retain both. TeleComNasSprVen 04:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Agree that these pages are redundant. Probably also agree that the better named template is "Non-free media rationale", although the layout of "Fairuse rationale" seems better. OTOH, only a couple of images use

"Non-free media rationale" and lots of images use "Fairuse rationale". The parameters are similar so possibly a redirect could work reasonably well - otherwise we'll need to choose which template to keep and then fix image pages which use the template to removed. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fix per Jtneill. Guido den Broeder 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Berliner Tageszeitung - Berliner Tageblatt
This German-language article has apparently been deleted from the German Wikiversity. Suggest deletion because whether or not they can use it, we can't! Unless someone would like to fight with Google Translate for a while. But there may well have been COI or something to result in deletion of the article... Gaidheal1 01:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete -- this could have been tagged instead of bringing it to RfD, my opinion. This isn't an educational resource, it's an encyclopedia article, in German, not English. See de.wikipedia. I can see no reason to keep it here on WV. It was a drop-by drop-in by an IP editor with no other edits.... Thanks for noticing it, Gaidheal1. --Abd 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio, yet again:, . TeleComNasSprVen 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there enough non copyvio text to justify the page? Geoff 03:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There might be, if this were German Wikiversity... Gaidheal1 06:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete Google translate indicates a German-language encyclopedic-style article about a German newspaper with no obvious educational intent. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not the function of the English WV to host German-language articles.--Poetlister 16:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Niranjan bhattacharya
This seems to be just a CV of the editor and it is hard to see what educational value it has.--Poetlister 17:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a copy of the author's userpage, so I'll go ahead and delete it. Geoff 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

States of matter
I honestly believe that this should be blown up and started over. Right now, in its current state, it's nothing, and it's main contributor has done nothing else constructive otherwise. TeleComNasSprVen 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The explosive violence isn't necessary, though. A simple deletion would be fine. If the author had other contributions, or was new, I'd think of userfying it (which any editor could do). But the author hasn't been around. There are no links to this and I doubt anyone will miss it. Just in case, though, I'm notifying the user, who seems to have email enabled, so may see the Talk page ping. --Abd 02:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment. At Wikiversity we click "edit" and improve pages. Note to Abd: your support for such a mis-use of the delete tool is another good reason why you should never be given Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your knee-jerk assumption is an example of why your view on that must be deprecated. There isn't material on that page to improve, it would be better to start over, the page isn't placed in a knowledge hierarchy, but, JWS, did you notice that I notified the user and made a suggestion as to how to save the page? No, you are still doing what you did before: think in black-and-white terms. It's part of why you were so utterly ineffective in remedying the very real problems you saw. It's a shame, because you truly were an important founder of Wikiversity. How about actually helping with that page, if you think it should be improved? How about notifying the user by email directly? I'd change my !vote in a flash if the page is even somewhat improved, or if the user shows up with an intention to do so, or you or anyone else declares that intention. Absent that, I'll stick with delete, but as a custodian, I'd not have deleted the page. I might have tagged it. I faced issues like this as a custodian, and I could show what I did. If the user had not been notified, I notified the user. I didn't just push "delete." But some of the other custodians would simply delete, and they do, and, if that's a problem, fix it! Find consensus for policy changes, create better deletion guidelines. Actually fix the problem, instead of just complaining about what everyone else does. Or accept consensus even if you differ with it. This page won't be deleted if there is no consensus for it. You didn't even support keeping the page, you just criticized my !vote. This is diagnostic. --Abd 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd: I agree that it is diagnostic. It is diagnostic of Wikipedia Disease: rather than edit and improve a page, just delete it...rather than discuss something and allow the community to decide, just block the editors who you disagree with and prevent them from editing...rather than be a Custodian, abuse your position of trust and mis-use Custodian tools. Ever since Jimbo's mis-guided disruption of Wikiversity Wikipedia's Banhammer Culture and deletionist method's have been imposed on this community...in violation of Wikiversity policy. Yes, I object to such disruptions of this collaborative learning community. Abd, do you plan to prevent me from voicing my objections when you attain your "executive' powers? "How about actually helping with that page, if you think it should be improved?" <-- I seldom edit Wikimedia wikis because of the disruption caused by deletionists and wielders of the mighty Banhammer. My hope is that all the tyrants will grow tired of disrupting this community and then Wikiversity will be able to recover. If that happens then I will return to more frequent editing. --JWSchmidt 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had those powers and did not use them. Why would JWS think I'd start? This conversion of every discussion into a litany of complaints is why I did suggest, at one time, restriction of JWS; however, the community was about evenly divided on that. I ended up !voting against it, myself. In no way would I use tools without a reasonable expectation of consensus. Notice that the page itself isn't an actual concern of JWS. Just me. How about we discuss pages here, instead of editors? --Abd 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * How about we discuss pages here, instead of editors? <-- The page should not have been listed for deletion; the problem here is editors showing devotion to the deletionist methods of another wiki project rather than using the edit button to fix a weak page. Why can't we discuss the real problem? --JWSchmidt 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The history of the page is only cleansed to allow a newer, better product to take its place. Once its deleted, we can go straight back to improving it; think of a fire in a wood, cleansing the rotten old material and new growth springing from the ashes of old. There are plenty of users on Wikipedia who distrust admins (Admins by nature are deletionists, since they are the only ones who have the technical ability to press the "delete" button) and even more so of adminship requests; you can communicate your concerns to them there. TeleComNasSprVen 17:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete. Has been around for 2 years in its current form. If anyone was going to click the edit button and improve on it they would of done so by now. Maybe people are having difficulty finding ways to improve on what is there, and finding ways to learn from it. Maybe people will find a way to encourage learning with a fresh start that they are unable to see presently with the current page. -- dark lama  18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this information on Wikipedia because it looks like it would be and wouldn't need to be copied over here in a poor form. --Anonymous Uploader 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean like State of matter or Matter? Yes this information is available at Wikipedia in better form. -- dark lama  19:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. This looks to me like a genuine attempt to create a learning resource about an important topic in basic physics. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep Why should we delete when we could just redo everything and still keep the edit history there? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete No genuine attempt is ongoing. In its current state the page offers the reader nothing. Guido den Broeder 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perivity

 * Delete in all forms, in any location, user space or main space. Wikiversity is plagued by people wanting to push their strange views of physics. New information or discussions of fringe theory can help, but just putting it out there like that can confuse new users who cannot differentiate between real science and fake. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above !vote was edited after response had been made below, to make it extreme, whereas the legitimate concern expressed, possible confusion of new users was addressed. "Push" is an assumption of bad faith. How about "express" and "discuss" and even "learn"? Are those not academic functions? Are people with strange ideas to be excluded from the academic environment, or can they, and perhaps others, benefit from it? The issue is "where" and "how," and Playspace allows this to take place without harm. With consensus, the exploration of strange ideas can take place in mainspace or, more likely, in mainspace subpages, but Playspace need not be so restricted, and people can simply ignore goofy ideas in user space, as long as they are not positively harmful, like libel and personal attack. Restrictions on Playspace should be worked out in the project page. --Abd 14:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Junk science doesn't become better because it is moved to user space. Imaginary science will confuse children and beginners, especially those who use google to look up material. Wikiversity is not a host to it. There is a difference between fringe and imaginary, and imaginary is not within our purview. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Creative writing, including fiction, is a subject taught in universities. It involves imagination.

 * "Junk science" is a judgment, sometimes applied to real science that the one judging doesn't understand. If someone is holding erroneous beliefs, thinking them science, the scientific approach is to address the evidence and arguments, not to dismiss it as "junk science." So any page of true scientific error here is an opportunity to cover real science, by discussing it. That's long been expressed in RfDs here. Using Playspace or some similar approach respects the legitimate desire to clean up our mainspace, to avoid fringe work being presented as if it were accepted science. A playspace page need not stay there, if a better place is found.

 * I'm very involved with a major scientific controversy, a situation where what is being published in mainstream journals, over the last five years, is radically different from the opinion of "most scientists." The field is often called "junk science," and I just saw a discussion on a major physics web site shut down because of the controversy, by an administrator, "for review," and the review never appeared. It's a mess. And there may be many such messes. Part of the job of academia is to open such things up, to provide objective and deep consideration. When "official science" is automatically given exclusive control of education, even at an open space like this, we have established, in fact, a kind of religion, calling it "science." And pseudo-skeptics will use this. --Abd 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a -fringe- view and a fake science. Pervity has fake science. But, as Moulton as pointed out, a lot of your own stuff is fake. So, you must feel threatened when other fake stuff is removed. That is the opposite of academic freedom where you feel that you must indoctrinate patently false information instead of providing people with objectively sound information. Science isn't politics and you can't just make something "true" because you want it to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference. However, if there is a fringe view that is held by only one person, an author, that doesn't make it "fake." It may well be the view of someone ignorant of the mainstream views. And what does such a person need? Okay, two choices: deletion or education? In the first case, the person learns nothing and often resents the deletion. In the second case, well, often when one person writes about a Bad Idea as to science, others think it but don't write it. A page that examines the idea, that treats it respectfully and seriously, but that also explains the real science involved, can educate not only the "fake science" author, but others as well. As we know, some "fake science" authors are unable to listen and learn, but that does not mean we should not try!
 * "only one person, an author, that doesn't make it "fake." " When the work has no Google hits and the person admits that he just made it up, it does make it fake. Did you bother to read the page? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moulton is intemperate in his discussion, but, in the end, the truth tends to come out. He's proposed junk idea after junk idea, and usually drops them after it becomes totally obvious that he's basically ignorant in this field. He's quite knowledgeable in general, and accustomed to being the Smartest Kid on the Block. We know that about Moulton, okay? The discussions at Cold fusion have been quite valuable; he's uncovered two omissions in the literature, stuff like that, but he also tends to write as if he just found The Reason Why Hundreds of Scientists ("Believers") Have Fooled Themselves. What he's found, that actually has some reality, is generally minor, stuff that I can, with my connections in the field, remedy. Thus Wikiversity is serving a genuine academic function.
 * As to Ottava's view of "academic freedom," it's worrisome. We should work, somewhere, on Wikiversity philosophy, and develop consensus about this; perhaps I haven't studied what came before enough. --Abd 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See if you can remedy the omission of reckoning the AC noise power arising from the bubbling of the electrolyte. —Caprice 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Playspace I've moved this into User:Abd/Playspace, and removed the tag. Fred, original research is not prohibited on Wikiversity, and if someone wants to explore, here, a novel physics theory they -- or someone else -- originated, they may. And maybe someone will discuss it with them, and maybe someone will learn something. If anyone thinks this page belongs in mainspace, they may move it back, but I'll watch pages in my Playspace. As-is, we have kept many similar pages, at least for a long time. See Playspace, which was mostly started to handle "nonsense" pages created by possible middle school children. For a page like this, Playspace allows the user some time to better establish his page, which might possibly be more appropriate as some kind of subpage of another page. I don't see enough there to come to any conclusions at all. In any case, thanks for helping clean up Wikiversity. (I'd prefer to leave the redirect in place for a while, so the user can find his page.) --Abd 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know what playspace means but it doesn't look like it could ever be useful so it should be deleted. --Anonymous Uploader 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Playspace" means that the page is now in user space, as an orphaned page not clearly qualified for retention, see Playspace as suggested. This page may spark a discussion with learning consequences, that's already started, Caprice knows a thing or two about physics. Some people have a narrow view of what is proper academic activity, others have a broader view. Students at a university may study or play with many different kinds of ideas, and this is one of them. My personal goal is to eventually clean up and organize mainspace so that standard, mainstream topics are well-covered, and we don't have random pages lying about. Some playspace pages like User:Abd/Playspace/Perivity may end up being exercises under a regular physics resource, for example. Even Wikipedia would allow a page like this, often, in user space. It has even better justification here. --Abd 04:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you just wrote Playspace and it does not have any authority or backing. The page can still be deleted by consensus regardless of if you want to have it in your subspace or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can. However, we have no tradition of deleting essays like this in user space. Yes, I wrote the Playspace document, and participation is invited, please help develop procedures for this. This is a possible solution to certain long-term problems. It may not work, but more likely it simply won't work all the time. Now, if there is some harm being done by pages in a playspace, please let the "owner" -- the user hosting the space -- know. And please discuss the Playspace concept and help develop procedures. As far as I can see, the alternative is the hard-fist, delete, block approach that simply creates more work, long-term, than more collaborative approaches.
 * As Moulton (Caprice) has been pointing out for a long time, "play" is a very important part of learning, and teachers and administrators who don't allow play are far less effective and efficient than those who do, who even incorporate it. Ask Moulton! It's his field. --Abd 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Playfulness and flights of fancy do have a role in the learning process.  In Perivity, I asked the person who proposed this idea to take it to the next step and work out the associated mathematical model, per his proposed analogy to electricity and magnetism.  Doing the math is a wonderful learning exercise, even if one is modeling an entirely imaginary and fanciful phenomenon.  —Caprice 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * -- Abd and Moulton seem both willing and able to create an educational experience inspired by the page, if not an educational resource page. Still not liking the "playspace" name though. --SB_Johnny talk 22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reinhold Niebuhr says, “We must always seek the truth in our opponents’ error and the error in our own truth.” Knowledge construction is rarely an error-free process. We can learn a lot by studying the unavoidable errors in our mental models. —Caprice 22:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Proposed close I closed this provisionally with:
 * Userfied to User:Abd/Playspace/Perivity. If page is improved to become a better educational resource, it may be moved back to mainspace. Involved close, any registered user other than the nominator may revert this close, the closing statement is not an argument but a result. --Abd 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done; three deletes and two keeps ain't consensus. This isn't a !vote, but you know how to count, right? TeleComNasSprVen 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TCNSV reopened with the comment below. --Abd 02:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see the nominator plus two deletes. The nominator and one of the delete !voters have very low Wikiversity contributions. As to keeps, I see one userfy (my result, done, confirmed by another user, Moulton, by his work on the page, and with a Keep, then, by SBJ, based on that. All established WV users. Normally user space may be used for working files even of low quality. I'm fairly sure that the nominator would have no problem with this. I do know how to count. Was this a vote? "Isn't a !vote," parsed, is "isn't a not-vote," i.e., is a vote. No, it's a !vote. Silly reopening. --Abd 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per SB_Johnny. Guido den Broeder 14:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd closed this request inappropriately again with the following message: "Userfied to User:Abd/Playspace/Perivity. Involved close."--Abd. As this is an involved closure, I am free to revert him and am therefore opening this request once again. My rationale is that time is not an important factor ub determining the close of a request for deletion, as we have two nominations above and  that have been open for over a year or so, and that the nominator so involved did not interpret consensus correctly. A delete !vote was given by a core contributor for the content and page history, despite whatever changes the namespace or title of the page has undergone, followed by one userfication !vote and two !keepasis !votes. Abd also discounted other !voters because of their low activity and/or contribution levels, which is an ad hominem attack with a twist on the Wikipedia policy of the same name and so the close was inappropriate. Please discuss on the relevant talk page before reclosing this again, to prevent a revert war. TeleComNasSprVen 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Close this puppy.We have not developed specific rules for closure, including involved closure. My suggestion has been that an involved closure may be reverted by any registered user other than the nominator,provided that argument for keeping it open is presented. I have been following a practice of not actually archiving involved closures, but leaving them here for review for a substantial time, about two weeks. I did, in my discussion, deprecate votes from those not likely to be familiar with Wikiversity inclusion policy, which is probably the most generous policy of any WMF wiki. That is technically ad-hominem as an argument, but is not a personal attack, because unfamiliarity is not an offense. There will be no revert war, not from me, anyway. TCNSV has been, however, taking the position that RfDs should remain open for a very long time, when they don't obtain his desired result, and that causes ongoing damage. Since TCNSV re-opened previously, there has been only one new comment in this RfD, that of Guido den Broeder, what was to Keep, thus Keep has only gotten stronger after my first involved close.
 * Normally, WV provides wide latitude even in mainspace, so far more in user space. Had this page not been in mainspace originally, there would never have been an RfD. (If so, I'd like to know, so I can bail out before this plane crashes.) Userfying the page was, then, a way to attempt to obtain consensus, and continued Delete argument, after that happened, would seem to be an attempt to punish the creator for the original creation. Or me for userfying. --Abd 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem may be an argument without a personal attack, but it is fallacious nonetheless. You assume incorrectly yet again bad faith of others by saying that I reopen it for the petty reason that it does not produce the result I desire; you may observe that I have nary !voted in this discussion nor even looked at the page that is the subject of this request. My only wish is that a clear community consensus arise out of this discussion. The close was premature at best, abusive at worst, because it hampers discussion surrounding the subject page in question, when it clearly says at each substitution of the template not to modify the request section of this page, a rule Abd fails to recognize may block other users from reverting his closures. As to Guido's !vote, I do not think that it ought to count much towards resolving the issue towards keep, as it is a mere instance of satisfying the supermajority of two or three with a per nom or a per majority argument thrown in.
 * It is often the case that many people do not comprehend the purpose of deletion. Deletion of a page implies not only removing the current content present on the page at the particular time that it was nominated but also processing an expulsion from the wiki any page history that could be salvaged from the page itself by hiding it from non-admins. It also implies, therefore, that such content is inappropriate to Wikiversity's scope, regardless of the title, namespace or other metadata associated with it that may have been attached or changed whilst the main content remains. There's plenty of places for random nonsense, or even pages of educational value, to take hold of elsewhere, including Wikia, Twitter, Facebook, and several other Internet web sites dedicated to hosting such content. Moving something from one namespace to another or from a new title to another does not make the content better that it would fit anywhere in the wiki, and userfication is generally meant as an assurance that perhaps it could be improved and remain in development before moving to mainspace at a later time, or for hosting user metadata. Wikiversity has a clearly defined scope, and deleting a page ensures that we are on the track with such scope. Otherwise, we would all be glad to produce any sort of ramblings in our userspace and it would not produce much meaning relevant to our scope; and it is this that governs the deletion process. Of course, even something as inflexible as the scope of a project may be subject to changes, but that's a discussion for another time. There is no punishment of users involved; the only thing that we ought to be worried about is the page and its history. The key to this wiki is to produce something meaningful and educational, and if it is not both nor either one, then surely it is inappropriate no matter what namespace it is in or whose playspace it belongs to.
 * I hope that a new recloser, preferably an admin with much experience in interpreting outcomes and results, may better assess the consensus presented on this page than Abd has clearly misinterpreted it. TeleComNasSprVen 05:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Custodian requests
Useless page with not much in revision history besides the occasional newbie editing to warrant archival. TeleComNasSprVen 02:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Could be turned into a redirect to Request custodian action. -- dark lama  02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's kind of ambiguous even as a redirect. As I understand from looking at the contents of the page, it could also be a request for custodian status as well, not just help from another custodian. TeleComNasSprVen 02:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedy keep having such a page is a matter of Wikiversity policy and should be referred to an appropriate page, not discussed here.--Poetlister 13:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Copy the contents of the page to Candidates for Custodianship/Archived (as the two entries there were never made custodian) and then rename links to the page with a redirect from Custodian requests to Candidates for Custodianship. --mikeu talk 18:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Date
Unused template with little value. (By the way works just as fine as the  I've stumbled upon.) TeleComNasSprVen 05:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the template? It's certainly not causing any "damage"... --SB_Johnny talk 10:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently that template is meant to be substituted so of course it appears to be unused. I could extend it to allow a custom date to be used. -- dark lama  13:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Should be fairly safe to delete an unused template. Thenub314 01:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time that Thenub314 commented, the comments from SBJ and Darklama were hidden, commented out, apparently hidden by the result of close and reversion of close, so Thenub may not have seen those comments. --Abd 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep If a template is being used through substitution, and if the text is common, it may not be possible to tell if it's being used. Darklama, above, claims use, and Thenub314 seems to have overlooked that. --Abd 03:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alumni services
Tagged for deletion by User:=Benjamin= since June, no edits since, apparently was not listed at RfD. (Not my request.) --Draicone (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete' Delete because this is more of a discussion instead of a good article --Anonymous Uploader 04:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment. Seems like an appropriate and relevant topic, although not much has been done yet. Have tagged it as a stub. Maybe move the current content to the talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk -c 09:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to community space. Not a resource; interesting idea. Guido den Broeder 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)