text:
Wikiversity:Colloquium/What should we do about JWSchmidt?

Later note: An additional thread was opened on this topic by User:SB_Johnny (bureaucrat) at Request_custodian_action, requesting a review of John's behaviour and likewise calling for action. --McCormack 06:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have been aware that User:JWSchmidt isn't exactly being friendly to me around here. Most of you will not be aware how bad it is getting or that other users are also being bullied. Some of you may have been manipulated by the weird edit summaries into thinking that it's a two-sided thing rather than bullying. User:JWSchmidt has been constantly trying to force a confrontation similar to a Wikipedia-style "arbcom" case since about 19th August. The worst disruption has been his "learning project" on myself phrased in a rather aggressive style at Student union (see especially the versions of http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Student_union&oldid=317331 and this difference: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3AStudent_union&diff=315213&oldid=315186). In particular, JWS has continually edited the main page to point to his "attack learning project" on me. However there are loads of other edits which have been strange to say the least. I think JWS's tactics are really to exploit Wikiversity's relatively weak and small community and see just how far he can push us before he either destroys the community in civil war or before he manages to drive out the best editors. I'd been hoping that this would blow over by itself. Disruptive users only have a limited amount of energy. But I think this may have got to the point where the community has to make a decision about JWS. I'll leave it to other users to suggest disciplinary measures, if any. It would be best if we can turn JWS back into a constructive user. --McCormack 15:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * McCormack: I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Is it that you are not happy when you cannot delete other people's contributions to Wikiversity? If I prevent you from deleting Wikiversity content you feel that I am not "exactly being friendly" to you? Preventing Wikiversity content from being deleted is "bullying"? Discussing your efforts to delete Wikiversity content is an "attack"? "I think JWS's tactics are really to exploit Wikiversity's relatively weak and small community and see just how far he can push us before he either destroys the community in civil war or before he manages to drive out the best editors." <-- Why should preventing you from deleting Wikiversity content cause a "civil war"? Are you claiming that "the best editors" will leave Wikiversity if they are not allowed to delete Wikiversity content? What "disciplinary measures" do you have in mind? Blocks for all Wikiversity participants who do not support your attempts to delete Wikiversity content? By your definition, anyone who prevents you from deleting Wikiversity content is no longer a "constructive user"? Please explain. --JWSchmidt 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Now you both just sound hostile. Can we not learn something from Moulton and Centaur of Attention?  The Jade Knight 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I would hope that opera lovers here would learn to appreciate the lessons of Bela's classic Soap Opera, Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination. —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, and JWSchmidt, in my book, stating that "McCormack does not invite students to participate, but Wikiversity does" when all he did was remove a link on the main page to a (currently) problematic learning project (particularly one where the community has recognized problems) is definitely "not exactly being friendly", maybe even what I'd call a personal attack. The Jade Knight 15:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * See Narcissistic Wounding. —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't go so far as to say that JWSchmidt is intentionally out to create a community civil war or drive out the best editors. That said, his actions over at Student union have been very hostile. I'm hoping that he will self-censure, cool down, and that disciplinary measures won't be necessary? It is okay for us to have conflicting viewpoints here at the WM Utopia that is Wikiversity. It is not okay to ridicule other users for having differing opinions. The Jade Knight 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I changed the title above to where this discussion seems to really center upon. Dzonatas 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Jade Knight: please explain how my actions are "very hostile". I saved the page from being deleted and now I am developing the content of the page. In my view, it is the effort of others to delete this page's content that is hostile to the very nature of the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 17:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I defined hostile at the student union page. But to repeat…  To whit: you have not been hospitable and you attempted to intimidate and antagonize McCormack.  More generally, you have:

 * Assumed bad faith on our parts
 * Refused to listen to consensus
 * Acted hostily towards other participants
 * Pretended like you're not doing anything antagonistic
 * Insisted that only your view encourages students to participate on Wikiversity, and that ours discourage them.
 * Misconstrued our edits.
 * That's a beginning of it, at least. The Jade Knight 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Jade, I am interested in learning how you form theories of mind of your adversaries. In the above, you have presented interesting theories of the beliefs ("assumptions"), desires, intentions, and pretensions of knowledge of JWS.  I personally find it difficult to construct an accurate theory of mind of my own adversaries, so I am curious to learn how one does this.  Would you be kind enough to unpack for me your evidence and reasoning to support your remarkable theory of mind regarding the cognitive-emotive state of JWS?  —Moulton 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Jade Knight: "Assumed bad faith" <-- please give details. "Refused to listen to consensus" <-- near the very start of a discussion, without any serious attempt to explore the reasons for what was happening, an attempt was made to claim that Wikiversity consensus favors deleting a learning exercise I am developing. As far as I know, there has been no consensus established on this matter. I am improving a page that other editors want to ignore, delete, or otherwise marginalize. There is currently a continuing discussion in which calls are being made to delete the learning exercise. In that discussion, I have asked other editors to make suggestions and improve the page. Some of the other editors seem to only want to perform censorship and prevent me from further developing the learning exercise. Jade Knight, you keep saying I "Acted hostily" (both here and repeatedly on the talk page discussion) but you provide no evidence of this. I am building a learning exercise that is allowing students to explore an important aspect of Wikiversity. Please explain where you imagine that "hostility" enters into my actions. "Pretended like you're not doing anything antagonistic" <-- maybe you just imagine that I am pretending. Please explain what I have done that is "antagonistic". "Insisted that only your view encourages students to participate on Wikiversity" <-- I never said that. I've invited you to contribute constructively to the page I am improving. "Misconstrued our edits" <-- which edits are you talking about? The edits that try to prevent students from going to the main student portal page? The edits that try to get the main student portal page deleted? The edits that try to turn the main student portal page into a redirect? The edits that try to delete (without justification) my edits to the main student portal? --JWSchmidt 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm content with the current state of affairs, with your little "parody" filed away as a case study, and the Student Union open to pertinent improvement. If you really want I'll give you a point-by-point response to your claims, etc.  However, if the state of affairs at this moment carries, I don't see the need to carry on the argument; I'd rather get around to improving Wikipedia than be antagonized by you.  So, you tell me.  Do you really need me to do more specific fault-finding?  Personally, I have little hope that there'll be any repentance on your part, no matter what I post here.  The Jade Knight 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<--- (ec) I've read the history of this page. While I feel the intimidation is questionable, I don't agree that there was intent to antagonize. I'm not fond of anything made into parodies, as it's not my cup of tea (either), but the intimidation seems only valid as a parody. McCormack's concern appears valid intimidation only as that parody, but history of the article and purpose of Wikiveristy shows such "giving in" to parody could have been avoided. Instead of finding fault on someone (to avoid a win-lose situation), I suggest a minor or major restructure. The consensus was to keep the page, so the obvious step is to resource it more. It may not look like a "student union" in the end as JWSchmidt would like it. Dzonatas 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * This seems to me like an absolutely outrageous accusation by McCormack again revealing his trademark paranoid rhetorical flourishes to try to paint people who do things a little differently around here as conspirators in "civil wars" or "exploiting weaknesses". Really now, lets please, please, please try to keep the place a bit more scholarly and open minded and try not to resort to the slanging matches we see in taking place in our more pedestrian neighbor. This discussion should have remained on the page where it first arose. Countrymike 07:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Countrymike. Perhaps you are not familiar with the edits in question? I've posted one example (of many) to your talk page and below). I hope that as a custodian, you will take the time to read and check the case for accuracy. Thanks. --McCormack 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I encourage the parties to engage in a scholarly colloquium to study the conflicting theses that McCormack, Jade Knight, and Countrymike each posit, above, and subject them to scientific peer review to determine the degree to which each thesis is supported by evidence, analysis, and reasoning. For example, Jade Knight's thesis that McCormack felt "intimidated" can be tested two ways.  First of all, McCormack can testify whether his affective emotional state was, in fact, one of fright.  Secondly, we can observe McCormack's actual reaction in the pages of Wikiversity and compare it to the scale posited by the Phreaking Spectrum.  Are the parties amenable to such a scholarly exercise in conflict analysis?  —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

An example of User:JWSchmidt's recent editing
This is just one example of many. After looking at some of the above comments, especially by User:Countrymike, and in the light of User:SB_Johnny's request for a review of User:JWSchmidt's editing, we need to have some solid facts behind any accusations made. --McCormack 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Case: the deletion request template
Go to the history of the deletion request template here: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Deletion_request&action=history. Countrymike made a sensible version in March (good sensible solid edit). On 11th August, User:ViperSnake151 made some design changes, not content changes. ViperSnake151 was doing a number of template design improvements at the time. ViperSnake151's edit drew John's attention and John made this edit which was problematic for two (smallish) reasons: firstly, the box title didn't fit the content any more, and second, the box content started to move in an anti-deletionist direction rather than being just neutral. Nobody did anything for a while. 20 days later, User:Adambro spotted the first of these problems (title misfit) and undid the change - however he left the anti-deletionist content alone. Adambro's edit was small, harmless and undoubtedly a small improvement - see. JWS promptly reverted Adambro, insisting that a "reason must be given". Actually what was going on here was that JWS wanted a reason to be entered on the template using a parameter, but the template had no parameter, and (as I slowly realised) JWS didn't know how to edit templates to use parameters. Basically, the argument was over the introduction of a parameter which neither of JWS (nor perhaps Adambro) could programme in. The argument between Adambro and JWS goes back to at least 20th August, when Adambro was active on the deletion requests pages and JWS got sarcastic with him using the comment "Adambro: you do not recognize any difference between editing a wiki and using a word processor?" (note also JWS's comment to this edit). Anyway, at this point (31st August again), I didn't like how JWS was treating Adambro and I stepped in and restored Adambro's edit as well as making a few further changes to the template - reformating, and making JWS's content edits of 11th August more neutral in tone. At the same time, I created the talk page for the template and opened a discussion of the edits. Instead of using the talk page, JWS promptly started using the template itself as a talk page with this large edit, transcluding his opinions into every page currently up for deletion. This was probably the first truly "disruptive" edit on this page, because by repurposing the template as a discussion forum, JWS disrupted the functionality of Wikiversity and forced his agenda. It's something called "disrupting a project to make a point". The template couldn't actually be left in that state, regardless of points of view. The first person to step in and correct the problem was User:Adambro, who reverted JWS's edits. I think this was right. JWS immediately reverted Adambro and this time left an even bigger essay right in the middle of the template:. The template was now at 340 words or so and about 10 times larger than a template should be. John's sarcastic comment for his edit was that the template "was not long enough". Adambro then reverted John. John then reverted Adambro again, leaving an even longer essay in the middle of the template (370 words). At this point, Adambro was on 2 reverts and John was on 3 reverts. I think if we'd been applying Wikipedia rules, JWS could have been legitimately blocked from editing Wikiversity for a short cool-off period. Watching this, I decided not to block JWS and I also decided not to revert JWS. I felt this would worsen the situation, although JWS was clearly wrong and way out of line. Instead I left a note on the talk page about the edit war and backed off. At this point, another custodian (User:Darklama) took up the problem of putting the template back into order after the edits by JWS. See Darklama's edits here where he removes JWS's essay and tries to improve the template. User:Darklama is a good programmer and introduced the "reason parameter" as well. Darklama's edits were good. Adambro changed Darklama's edits and removed the reason parameter - I don't agree with that particular edit by Adambro, as the presence or absence of the parameter should have been discussed on the talk page first. I can see arguments both ways between Darklama and Adambro. I think both of their edits were good faith. Darklama then reverted Adambro. I tend to agree with Darklama. Darklama continued to prgrammatically improve the template (good edits). User:JWSchmidt then returns and starts inserting essays into the middle of the template again - this is once again disruptive editing, and the edit summaries are not exactly polite towards Darklama. Darklama reverts JWS, referring to JWS's "anger and frustration". The final word in this saga was when a sockpuppet account suddenly appeared and added a penis-icon to the template - pornographic vandalism. Without a checkuser action, we do not know who was behind this edit. The current version of the template is as left by Darklama and Hillgentleman. --McCormack 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Just one small point: there was a checkuser run on the vandal, and it's highly unlikely that this had anything to do with anything else (that particular vandal tends to follow contribs of active sysops and vandalize whatever they were editing previously). -- SB_Johnny talk 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the CU info. Yes - it does also happen that the porno-vandals just attack anything that's been recently edited a lot. So unassociated. --McCormack 12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In the above account, I lost track of the number of times the question, "Why?" popped into my head without there being a clear explanation in the narrative. It would be helpful to me to know why different editors introduce (or redact) the disputed content or formatting details.  —Moulton 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * "It would be helpful ..... to know why different editors introduce (or redact) the disputed content" <-- Okay, here is the story. Deletion templates have been misused at Wikiversity. The basic problem is that some editors want to delete content from Wikiversity according to the rules/culture of Wikipedia. In contrast to what is done at Wikipedia, Wikiversity welcomes all participants who make good faith contributions. Rather than delete their contributions, we collaborate to improve Wikiversity pages. My edit of 11 August 2008 was intended to help prevent misuse of the template. "the box content started to move in an anti-deletionist direction rather than being just neutral" <-- People were misusing the template, so something needed to be done. "Adambro's edit was small, harmless and undoubtedly a small improvement" <-- I do not agree. It is important that people think about why they are trying to delete a page. What is wrong with forcing people to provide a valid reason for deletion on the page they are trying to delete? At that point, I was tired of seeing false reasons being provided for deleting Wikiversity content. Something had to be done to prevent people from continuing to bring the toxic deletionist culture of Wikipedia into Wikiversity. This had become a topic for concern and discussion in the #wikiversity-en chat channel since about August 20. "Instead of using the talk page" <-- when I noticed the talk page discussion, I did participate (my talk page comment). McCormack previously called me a troll and informed me that he would not longer talk to me. Its not very sensible for him to now complain that I did not try to use a talk page and talk to him. In any case, I was editing the template so as to make improvements to it. McCormack says that my edits were "disrupting a project to make a point". In my view, the version of the template that I was developing is an improvement over what we had then and what we have now. I can understand that people who enjoy deleting Wikiversity content will call me disruptive when I work to prevent the deletion of Wikiversity content. In my view, those who try to delete Wikiversity content are the disruptive ones. There is a stark contrast here: should Wikiversity delete good faith contributions or take the time to improve them? "JWS could have been legitimately blocked from editing Wikiversity" <-- Wikiversity is not Wikipedia. I was making a good faith improvement to a Wikiversity page. At Wikiversity we block vandals, not people who are making good faith contributions. "inserting essays into the middle of the template again - this is once again disruptive editing" <-- In my view, the template was too short. It needed more instructions to help Wikiversity participants not abuse the page deletion process. As far as I can tell, my good faith improvements to the template can only be viewed as "disruptive" by someone who wants to misuse page deletion. "JWS's anger and frustration" <-- I agree that it is frustrating to watch Wikiversity participants try to delete the good faith contributions of their peers. I deal with my frustration by editing so as to improve Wikiversity. "The final word in this saga" <-- I do not think we have yet seen "the final word". We still have one or two participants who think they have the right to delete the good faith contributions of other Wikiversity editors. I suppose there will always be more people coming here from Wikipedia where they have learned to be deletionists. They will try to apply Wikipedia's rules and standards and methods for deletion to Wikiversity. I stand ready to protect Wikiversity and fight to make sure that Wikiversity retains its culture of welcoming good faith contributions. "It would be helpful ..... to know why different editors introduce (or redact) the disputed content" <-- In summary, I was trying to prevent the misuse of page deletion at Wikiversity. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to say what other editors were trying to accomplish. --JWSchmidt 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the next step would be to devise an objective way to assess and distinguish "good faith" from "bad faith" in the context of such edits. It occurs to me that part of the problem is that participants don't agree on what constitutes an improvement.  That could be due to different perceptions of the over-arching values of Wikiversity, or it could be due to the inability to assess an edit toward or along the Pareto-Optimal Frontier of the Wikiversity Value System.  Perhaps it would be best to start with a Values Clarification Exercise to see if we all agree on the Wikiversity Value System.  —Moulton 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * "Values Clarification Exercise" <-- Yes, that would be useful. --JWSchmidt 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * This case should be moved to its own page. I suggest: Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikiversity/Case_Studies/Deletionism or Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikiversity/Case_Studies/Disruption. This is entire thread is surely about behaviour beyond JWSchmidt. It would be more constructive to have its own page for review and to study ethics. Dzonatas 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to study the evolution of Wikiversity from early days to present
Posted on the discussion page for the Wikiversity Student Union:

Greetings,

I am a researcher who specializes in Learning Theory and Online Educational Systems.

I am interested in studying how modern and progressive Learning Organizations evolve from their initial concept and implementation through evolutionary phases of organization and development to their current culture, values, and operational practices.

I would like to learn from the episode being argued on the project page here how Wikiversity evolved from its early history, so that I can better appreciate how the concept, culture, values, and operational practices of Wikiversity have evolved from the early days to the present epoch. May I be allowed to study that, please, with access to historic documents of the earlier epochs?

Thank you for your consideration in permitting me to study the historic record of this remarkable Learning Organization.

Moulton 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Moulton 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * JWSchmidt's added content that Salmon of Doubt keeps reverted has been moved here Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Deletionism -- Dzonatas 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not just me - two other users are reverting his inapropriate additions. Try to keep up. Salmon of Doubt 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm building a learning resource for students. What do you mean by "inapropriate additions"? --JWSchmidt 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You were turning the Student Union into a screed against deletionism. Try to keep up. Salmon of Doubt 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Attempts have been made to delete the main student portal of Wikiversity, turn the main student portal of Wikiversity into a redirect, and delete from the main student portal of Wikiversity a learning exercise that was designed for students. Salmon now refuses to discus the further development of the page, but he keeps reverting the page, without comment. "a screed against deletionism" <-- I don't know what that means. I crafted a learning exercise that allows students to learn about deletionism in the context of the attempted deletion of the Student Union page. This is relevant to all students who want to participate at Wikiversity. If other editors have ideas for other useful content on the page they should help develop the page. --JWSchmidt 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I object to the summary unilateral deletion of well-sourced scholarly content. I object to the false claim that there exists a 'consensus' to revert the addition of well-sourced scholarly content.  Given that at least two editors object to the deletion of well-sourced scholarly content, there is no 'consensus' to delete it.  Please restore it.  —Moulton 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * JWSchmidt, we all support reformation of the Student Union into something more helpful. We oppose not the keeping of the Student Union (McCormack may have at one point, but if so he's changed his mind since), but your using it as a platform to launch what appear to be (to the first three of us to show up) personal attacks (harassment by parody is still harassment).  The Jade Knight 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that's a great place to put it, Dzonatas. I think I may just make a parody of it, file it away in a similar location, and make it Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Intimidation Tactics.  Any thoughts?  The Jade Knight 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * "personal attacks (harassment by parody is still harassment" <-- I do not understand your reasoning, I've harassed nobody. If you have suggestions for how to improve the page, lets discuss your suggestions on the talk page. --JWSchmidt 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The edit summary here seems to me to be intended to insult McCormack; you've set up a "correct" standard behavior ("Wikiversity does"), and then you draw a contrast between correct (Wikiversity) and McCormack, making sure to discuss the person (ad hominem) instead of the content of the edit. I know you're having a fun time pretending like you never said anything which could be construed as insulting, but I'm growing very tired of this.  A solution (I hope) has been found; you have your playground to insult the deletionists.  Let's be done.  The Jade Knight 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Please see the Google Knol article, Narcissistic Wounding. —Moulton 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * RE: "I think that's a great place to put it, Dzonatas. I think I may just make a parody of it, file it away... Any thoughts?" In my profession, I inoculate bugs. Viruses, like cancer and HIV, are not cured when every infected host is killed off. I'm not laughing at any parody here. Dzonatas 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Jade Knight: "intended to insult McCormack" <-- My edit summary explained my edit. In my view, removing the link to the student portal is removing a significant part of the Wikiversity invitation to students. Were it anyone else, I could have discussed the matter on their talk page, but McCormack has called me a troll and refuses to talk to me. My only remaining point of contact is edit summaries. I agree that sending messages to him by way of edit summaries is not an ideal solution, but the root problem is that McCormack refuses to talk to me and that leaves me with no means of communication except edit summaries. I'll stop sending personal messages to McCormack by way of edit summaries if he agrees to talk to me in other communications channels. --JWSchmidt 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * IMO, you "message" was insulting. That said, McCormack should definitely still be using other communication channels (and he at least seemed to be using the talk page for the Student Union article), though he failed to do so for the front page bit (though I personally felt like his edit was perfectly-well explained (in a non-insulting manner) in the edit summary).  At any rate, let's move on from this and be more constructive, eh?  The Jade Knight 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We get this nonsense at Wikipedia all the time. The scenario goes like this. Person one does X. Person two says "Person one did X". Person one says "That a violation of our civility policy; you are attacking me." I hope everyone can see that this is unacceptable. Person two one should either justify doing X or else say "Whoops, my bad, sorry." Sometimes that will look like: "Well, I did X and that was a mistake; but you could have said that nicer." Instead people get all defensive and attack the person who pointed out they did something inappropriate; claiming the language that was used was not nice enough. Please, this is not kindergarten. When you make a mistake, own up to it and move on. WAS 4.250 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen. The Jade Knight 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * WAS is exactly right. In fact this idiocy is so common (not just on Wikipedia) that I wrote a parody of it.

 * Moulton 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * WAS 4.250: "Person two should either justify doing X or else...." <-- If "Person one does X" why should person two justify it? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for catching that. I corrected it. WAS 4.250 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In reply to the first post here, JWSchmidt should be unbanned and at least have his custodianship and probably also checkuser reinstated. Emesee 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


text: User:Dark Mage/Administration/Main

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

title: User:Dark Mage/Administration/Main


text:
User:Rlevse

You can best reach me at the English Wikipedia, and also on Wikimedia Commons.

title: User:Rlevse


text:
User talk:Rlevse

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! -- DarkMage 18:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rlevse


text:
User:Random832

I'm mainly active on English Wikipedia; you may get a quicker response on urgent matters if you contact me there.

title: User:Random832


title: File:GlobalFBD0908.JPG


title: File:Element1FBD0908.JPG


title: File:Element2FBD0908.JPG


title: File:KMatrix0908.JPG


text: File:StaticallyIndeterminate.JPG

title: File:StaticallyIndeterminate.JPG


title: File:CoordSysAngle0908.JPG


text:
User:Eas4200c.f08.aero6.behnke/HW2

Problem 1.1
Given:

 * The beam of a thin-walled rectangular section shown in Figure 1 carrying a bending moment, $$M\!$$, and a torque, $$T\!$$. Assume that $$t\!$$ is much

smaller than $$a\!$$ or $$b\!$$. Recall the following relationship between shear stress and torsion and its derivation.
 * Because the cross-section walls of the beam are very thin, it can be approximated that the shear stress distribution is uniform across the wall, as shown in Figure 2.
 * Consider
 * $$T = T_{AB}+T_{BC}+T_{CD}+T_{DA}\!$$
 * where
 * $$T_{AB} = \frac{b}{2}\upsilon a = \frac{1}{2}\tau abt\!$$
 * $$T_{BC} = \frac{a}{2}\upsilon b = \frac{1}{2}\tau abt\!$$
 * $$T_{CD} = \frac{b}{2}\upsilon a = \frac{1}{2}\tau abt\!$$
 * $$T_{DA} = \frac{a}{2}\upsilon b = \frac{1}{2}\tau abt\!$$
 * Hence
 * $$T = 2\tau abt\!$$
 * Therefore
 * $$\ \tau = \frac{T}{2 a b t}\!$$

Constraints:

 * (1) The perimeter of the beam is of fixed length, i.e. $$L = 2(a+b)\!$$
 * (2) $$M = T\!$$
 * (3) $$\sigma_{allow} = 2\tau_{allow}\!$$ (This constraint is based on the Mohr's Circle shown in Figure 4)

Find:
 * The optimum $$b/a\!$$ ratio to achieve the most efficient cross section for the given constraints of the bending moment, torque, normal stress, and shear stress.

Solution:
 * Two possible solutions exist to maximize the ratio $$b/a\!$$, however only one of these solutions satisfies the given constraints. Therefore it is necessary to break the problem up in to two cases as follows.
 * Case 1: Assume that $$\sigma_{max}=\sigma_{allow}\!$$
 * Case 2: Assume that $$\tau_{max}=\tau_{allow}\!$$

Case 1
Recall the relationship between shear stress, bending moment, and moment of inertia shown below. Also recall that the moment of inertia, $$I\!$$, is a function of the geometry of the beam and therefore can be expressed as a function of the variable dimensions as shown in the collapsible table.

$$\sigma = \frac{Mz}{I}\!$$ EQN 1

where $$z\!$$ is the ordinate of a point, therefore equal to $$\frac{b}{2}\!$$. Therefore the $$z\!$$ can be replaced and the function can be rewritten to solve for $$M\!$$ as follows.

 * $$\sigma = \frac{Mb}{2I} \Longrightarrow M_{max}^{(1)} = \frac{2I\sigma_{max}}{b} = 2\sigma_{allow}\frac{I}{b} = T_{max}^{(1)}\!$$ by constraint 2

This final form is the most convenient because it breaks up the equation into the constants, $$2\!$$ and $$\sigma_{allow}\!$$, and the variables, $$I\!$$ and $$b\!$$, which are functions of $$a\!$$ and $$b\!$$.

The next task is to manipulate $$\frac{I}{b}\!$$ to be in terms of only one variable, and this is done by considering the fixed perimeter length specified in constraint 1. Then we maximize The function through differentiation and determine a final value for $$M_{max}^{(1)}\!$$.

We know
 * $$I = \frac{tb^2}{6}(3a+b)$$
 * and
 * $$a = \frac{L}{2}-b\!$$

Therefore
 * $$I = \frac{tb^2}{6}\left(3\left(\frac{L}{2}-b\right)+b\right) = \frac{tb^2}{12}\left(3L-4b\right)$$ EQN 2
 * $$\frac{I}{b} = \frac{tb}{6}\left(3\left(\frac{L}{2}-b\right)+b\right) = \frac{tb}{12}\left(3L-4b\right)$$

 * To maximized this equation it is necessary to recognize that $$L\!$$ is constant, then proceed as follows: [[Image:GraphIvsb.jpg|500px|thumb|Figure 7: Graph depicting relationship between I and b]]

 * $$\frac{d}{db}\frac{I}{b} = \frac{3tL}{12}-\frac{2b(4)t}{12}$$

Setting the derivative equal to zero allows the determination of critical point of the function.
 * $$\frac{3tL}{12}=\frac{2b(4)t}{12}$$

 * $$b = \frac{3L}{8}$$

since $$ L = 2(a+b)$$
 * $$a = \frac{L}{2}-b$$
 * $$a = \frac{L}{2}-\frac{3L}{8}$$

 * $$a = \frac{L}{8}$$

And the ratio of $$\frac{b}{a}$$ is  3  Plugging these dimensions into $$M_{max}^{(1)} = 2\sigma_{allow}\frac{I^{(1)}}{b^{(1)}} = 2\sigma_{allow}(\frac{tb^{(1)}(3L-4b^{(1)})}{12}) = \frac{3tL^{(2)}\sigma_{allow}}{32} = T_{max}^{(1)}\!$$

Now the shear stress due to $$T_{max}^{(1)}$$
 * $$\tau_{max}^{(1)} = \frac{T_{max}^{(1)}}{2a^{(1)}b^{(1)}t} = \frac{M_{max}^{(1)}}{2(\frac{L}{8})(\frac{3L}{8})t} = \sigma_{allow}$$

Which is 2x too big to satisfy constraint 3. Therefore this case is unacceptable.

Case 2
Now assume that $$\tau_{max}=\tau_{allow}\!$$ (The max shear stress reached is equal to the allowable shear stress). Remembering the formula derived at the top of the page, it is rewritten to reflect the new initial conditions of this case as follows.
 * $$\ \tau_{max} = \frac{T_{max}}{2 a b t}\ = \tau_{allow}\!$$

 * $$\ T_{max} = \left({2t}{\tau_{allow}}\right)(ab)\!$$

where $$2t/\tau_{allow}\!$$ is a constant and $$ab\!$$ is variable, therefore $$ab\!$$ can be optimized.

Now that $$(ab)_{max}\!$$ has been calculated, it is fed back into the equation for $$T^{(2)}_{max}\!$$ and set equal to $$M^{(2)}_{max}\!$$ as a function of $$\sigma_{allow}\!$$.

Recall EQN 2 derived earlier, and replace $$b\!$$ with its equivalent value $$L/4\!$$. Next use EQN1 to solve for $$\sigma_{max}\!$$. Then use the relationship in EQN3 to define $$\sigma_{max}(\sigma_{allow})\!$$

Therefore $$\sigma_{max}<\sigma_{allow}\!$$ and this is the valid solution.

Advantages of Stringer Cross-Sections
Both cross-sections in Figure 8 have the same Moment of Inertia about the y-axis.

Advantages of the stringer cross-section:
 * 1. The stringer has an open, not closed, cross section. This makes it easier to fabricate with a punching die.
 * 2. The two vertical sides on the cross section are not parallel. This allows the beams to be stacked during shipment, which is a huge space saver.
 * 3. Assembly of the stringer beams to an aircraft is made a lot easier because of this open, not closed, cross-section. A riveting tool can easily be used without running into any interference.

Problem 1.7
Given Information - R = 10 cm; t = 1cm
 * Compare the load bearing capabilities of the two figures shown in figure 9.
 * Case 1: Large Circle
 * $$ \sigma = \frac{Mz}{I} $$
 * $$ I(circle) = \frac{\pi R^{4}}{4} = \frac{\pi 10^{4}}{4}$$
 * For the first equation z is just the radius of the big circle, R

 * $$ \sigma^{(1)} = \frac{4MR}{\pi R^{4}} = \frac{4M}{\pi R^{3}} = \frac{.00127}{cm^{3}}M^{(1)} $$

 * Case 2: Circular Beam
 * $$ A_{Total} = 100 \times \pi $$
 * $$ A_{rectangle} = 2R_{0} \times t = 2 \times 10 \times 1 = 20 cm^{2} $$
 * $$ A_{one circle} = (50 \times \pi) - 10 = \pi \times R_1^{2} $$
 * Solving for R1 you get: R1 = r = 6.84 cm

 * Now we need to calculate the area moment of inertia for the beam. You can do so by finding "I" for the rectangle, and then use the parallel axis theorem to find "I" for the two circles.
 * $$ I_{Rectangle} = \frac{2tR_{0}^{3}}{3} $$
 * $$ I_{circle} = \frac{a^{4}}{12} + (R_{0} + r)^{2}*(\pi r^{2})$$
 * $$ I_{total} = \frac{2tR_{0}^{3}}{3} + \frac{r^{4}}{6}+ 2*(R_{0} + r)^{2})*(\pi r^{2}) = 84473 cm^{4}$$

The z for this case is as follows:
 * $$ Z = R_{0} + 2 \times r$$
 * $$ \sigma = \frac{Mz}{I} $$
 * $$ \sigma^{(2)} = \frac{M(10 + 2 \times 6.84)}{84473} = \frac{2.80\times10^{-4}}{cm^{3}}*M^{(2)} $$

So far we have calculated the stresses, $$\sigma^{(1)}\!$$ and $$\sigma^{(2)}\!$$, for both cases in terms of the bending moment $$M\!$$. If we set these two equations equal to each other we can figure out for which case the bending moment is bigger. This is solved as follows:

 * $$\sigma^{(1)} = \sigma^{(2)} => \frac{.00127}{cm^{3}}M^{(1)} = \frac{2.80\times10^{-4}}{cm^{3}}*M^{(2)}$$

We can solve this for $$M^{(1)}\!$$ in terms of $$M^{(2)}\!$$ as follows:
 * $$M^{(1)} = \frac{\frac{2.80\times10^{-4}}{cm^{3}}*M^{(2)}}{\frac{.00127}{cm^{3}}} = 0.220*M^{(2)}$$
 * or
 * $$M^{(2)} = 4.55*M^{(1)}\!$$

Lets assume that the two separate cases have the same maximum stress:
 * $$\sigma_{max}^{(1)} = \sigma_{max}^{(2)}$$

This would mean that case 2 would have a maximum bending moment, $$M_{max}^{(2)}$$, that is about 4.5 times greater than the maximum bending moment for case 1, $$M_{max}^{(1)}$$.

Cross-section Optimization

The circular cross-section of a beam does not effitiently utilize the potential of its material properties. If the same area was redistributed in a manner that increases the moment of inertia, then the beam would have much greater bending resistance. Let us assume the following dimension relationships:

 * $$A^{(1)} = A^{(2)}\!$$

 * $$A^{(1)} = \pi R^{2} = 3at \!$$

where $$t = \frac{a}{10} $$ thus $$a = 3.23R\!$$

The moment of inertia for the circle, as previously described is as follows
 * $$I_{y} = \frac{\pi R^{4}}{4}$$

In order to compute the moment of inertia of the channel cross-section, one must first determine the location of the centroid in the Z direction. This is done by implementing the first or area moment of composite forms. Treating the channel as the overlapping of a solid square behind a slightly smaller square of negative area, the centroid calculation is as follows:

$$C_{y} = \frac{a^{2}*\frac{a}{2} - (a-t)(a-2t)*\frac{(a-t)}{2}}{a^{2} - (a-t)(a-2t)}$$ For simlicity, let us assume $$a = 10$$ and $$t = 1$$. Substituting back: $$C_{y} = \frac{10^{2}(\frac{10}{2}) - (10 - 1)(10 - 2(1))(\frac{10 - 1}{2})}{10^{2} - (10 - 1)(10 - 2(1))}$$ Thus $$C_{y} = 6.28$$ Normalizing this value with $$a $$ yields $$0.628a$$ from the base of the figure. Now computing the mass moment is the simple task of breaking down the channel into three rectangles, of which we already know how to calculate mass moment. The two vertical rectangles which lie symmetric to the axis of interest each contribute $$\frac{ta^{3}}{12}$$ and the top crossbar contributes $$\frac{at^{3}}{12} + (at)(a-0.628a-\frac{t}{2})^{2}$$. Thus the total contribution from the three sections is $$I_{y channel} = 2 \frac{ta^{3}}{12} + \frac{at^{3}}{12} + (at)(a-0.628a-\frac{t}{2})^{2}$$. Substituting $$a= 3.23R$$ into the formula leads to $$I_{y channel} = 2.947R^{4}$$ while $$I_{y circle} = 0.785R^{4}$$. This corresponds to a four fold increase for the given dimensions. The thinner the walls of the channel, the greater its mass moment and bending stiffness.

Shear Panels

 * The symbol gamma shown in Figure 11 is defined as the change in angle due to shear deformation. It is mathematically defined below as:
 * $$\gamma = \frac{\delta u}{\delta y} + \frac{\delta v}{\delta x}$$

Contributing Team Members
The following students contributed to this report:

Eduardo J. Villalba --Eas4200c.f08.aero6.villalba 08:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kris H. Loper Eas4200c.f08.aero6.loper 17:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Marlana Behnke Eas4200c.f08.aero6.behnke 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Scott Chastain Eas4200c.f08.aero6.chastain 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Ortega Eas4200c.f08.aero6.ortega 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Inman Eas4200c.f08.aero6.inman 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User:Eas4200c.f08.aero6.behnke/HW2


text:
Template:Evbox

{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

title: Template:Evbox


text:
Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt

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

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

Page for response by JWSchmidt

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

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

Page for response by JWSchmidt

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

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

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

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

It is initially proposed that:

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

Case 01: Albanian sea port history
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 02: The speedy deletion template
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 03: The main page
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 03)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''
 * What's really disturbing about this is that half an hour after he made this edit (pipelinking "students" to Student Union), he made this edit, which essentially morphed the student union content into an attack on McCormack. See my comment there (diff). It's pretty clear that his intent was to steer new users to an attack page, which I find frankly baffling. --SB_Johnny talk 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 04: Jon Awbrey user namespace abuse
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * I should say that while there can be legitimate disagreement about the correct course of action in this case, open hostility to other contributors is unacceptable. Since I don't consider myself a member of this community, I can certainly appreciate differing points of view on this issue, and indeed I attempted to have those views expressed at Meta - those attempts were pointedly rebuffed. The behaviour here is of concern, not his opinion (while I think he's wrong, that's not at issue). – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "consensus" on meta de facto over ride consensus (whatever that may be) here on Wikiversity? A quasi CV, and link to educational institutions and links to other user pages in the wikisphere seems completely appropriate for Wikiversity. Emesee 07:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Emesee here. The Jade Knight 08:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Emesee raises a valid side issue, but that's not really the central point here. The central point is the way Mike was treated. Even if Mike (or the folks on meta) did slightly screw up, none of us should ever be treated like this for our minor screw-ups. --McCormack 08:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. JWSchmidt gave an inappropriate response to an inappropriate action.  Neither were correct, and JWSchmidt's actions in this case seem clearly unwelcoming, but they were not entirely unjustified or unprovoked in this particular case.  For this reason, I consider this case less significant than most of the others.  The Jade Knight 09:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 07: The consensus deletion template
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 08: The student union
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 08)

 * This edit really says it all for me. I just can't understand trying on the one hand to make this a prominent entry page, while on the other turning the page into a drama attack on an active contributor. Is this really the first thing "students" should see? I mean, really? I didn't learn about this until a bit after it happened, but the behavior here truly boggles the mind. --SB_Johnny talk 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 09: The "browse" page
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

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

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

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

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

Case 21: The "cite sources" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 22: The "verifiability" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

We've practically treated this as policy. This can easily be reverted. Emesee 07:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 23: The "reliable sources" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 24: The "rollback" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 25: The "custodianship" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 36: Attempts to impose a learning model "policy"
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 05: Alienation of User:Adambro
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 06: Treatment of other users who vote to delete any material
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 31: Sockpuppet User:Trout of Doubt
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 32: User:Mike.lifeguard's bot account
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

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

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 33: Inappropriate use of the Wikiversity IRC channel
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 33)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''
 * I've seen this over and over again on the channel lately. JWSchmidt (and usually Moulton as a debate team member) essentially squelching anyone who voices concerns by demanding that they can't possibly understand until they acknowledge that Wikipedia is hopelessly corrupt, and that almost any tactic is fair game until that corruption is rooted out. Most times, the member(s) of the "opposing debate team" end up giving up and leaving the channel, which is almost always followed by backslapping and jibes ("the gig is up!", "I want a pony!", etc.). Voices of reason are in most cases drowned out. --SB_Johnny talk 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This happened to me as well, with even direct questions that didn't "play along" with the planned script and staged routine to self-promote their own goals being semi-ignored, even when multiple users pressed back. It's all a play acting or trolling experiment, and anything that runs squarely counter to it is sidestepped. Rootology 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 34: Partnership with User:Moulton
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 40: Alienation of users from other projects / from editing
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 40)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * 1)  I have spent much time trying to "deal with" (ie, respond to) JWSchmidt that should have been spent more productively (such as working on categorization).  The Jade Knight 10:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I've gotten very little done lately for similar reasons (though more often just looking at my watchlist, and being too disappointed to go try to do some work here). After taking myself off the Ethics project, I was hoping to start doing less confrontational projects on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and social practices (I got a small start with Assuming good faith, but given the state of affairs on our public discussion boards, I think most Wikipedians in particular would not want to participate here, so there's not much hope of populating those projects with people who can help build the content and give perspectives. --SB_Johnny  talk 10:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) My observations line up exactly with this, from what I have seen. The IRC channel is particularly overloaded. For example, without getting to my specifics, my look at it last night was an extended session of Schmidt and Moulton discussing (beyond the usual topic of why English Wikipedia wronged him) a variety of other users, and at least one who left Wikipedia for privacy concerns. Rootology 13:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Evidence: Part 4 (community-requested cases)
''This section has been created as at least two members of the community have requested to be able to add further cases to this list. The original authors of this review do not necessarily endorse statements made in these cases unless they specifically state otherwise. If you would like a case box added here, please put a request on the talk page, together with an explanation. ''

Case 41: Straw-man arguments and other fallacious discussion tactics
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100% {|width=100% style="background-color:#eeeeff;"

Discussion (case 41)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please be concrete with your evidence and neutral in tone. Please sign your name with --~ .''

 * this edit contains two straw men: JWSchmidt is clearly misconstruing my statements to make them reflect poorly on me, and in doing so is not being honest to my arguments; in particular he is implicating me of mocking free speech and engaging in book-burning here, without any evidence whatsoever that I would even support such action, trying to rhetorically engage in character-assassination thereby. He doesn't have to engage in name-calling, here; I don't think accusing someone of book burning and mocking free speech (when they have said nothing which could reasonably be construed as doing so) is much better than accusing them of trolling.  The Jade Knight 11:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * this edit contains another straw man, misrepresenting both what I had said and the context in which it was said, implicating that I would suggest that 'since [someone's writing] is "less than ideal" they should stop subjecting us to their garbage'. The goal here was again to make (by use of loaded rhetoric) me or my suggestions look ludicrous, cruel, or otherwise bad.  It's important to remember that he is not quoting me, but assigning an entire statement to me only a small part of which I said, which part was taken out of context.  The Jade Knight 11:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * this edit contains another straw man; in this case JWSchmidt is accusing Cormaggio of wanting to restrict free spech. The Jade Knight 11:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I ran into the same thing: JWS has been asking questions with a false dilemna, or excluded middle, as well as false presumptions: "How long has it been since you've stopped beating your wife" type - and is interrogating people on en.wp with the same technique. "Why did KillerChihuahua make a bad block? Why did MastCell put the wrong reason? Why did Yamla endorse the bad block?" and it is hurtful and causing problems - but I'm not sure how to document it in this format. Its why I left the irc room, after a very short visit - JWS made spurious accusations, then twisted things around so that he accused me of lying in such a way that there was no answer I could give which would not either take a paragraph of refuting his false presumptions, or give an answer which made no sense. KillerChihuahua 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * }
 * }
 * }

Statement by User:JWSchmidt
Please transclude or post your material here.

Statements by other users
''This space is for formal statements by any other users who wish to make a formal statement. Less formal statements can be made on the talk pages, and will also be read. To make a formal statement, please create a subsection with ===Statement by User:....=== and sign your statement at the end. Statements may be discussed by other users.''

Further sections
In order to ensure fair procedure, further sections may be added on this page as and when necessary and/or desired - for example, to discuss decisions and sanctions, if any and if necessary.


text:
User talk:Jimbo Wales

Blocking and deleting here
Hi I would like to ask you what entitle you to block here users? As I see you are not and administrator here (see special:listAdmins) nor a steward (see Stewards). So after hard searching I came to this page: w:Wikipedia:User access levels and can read there "However, as 'local founder actions' are usually of great interest to the local community, and are only relevant to the English Wikipedia"…. So it would be nice to clarify your possession.

It is the second time you use the right created for the use on English Wikipedia (see: ) and I don't think, you are the founder of English Wikiversity. So this behavior (and I am sorry to say that) seems as dictatorship in here. If you have a problem with someone, there is a broad list of Custodians you can ask for a help or broad list of stewards potentially.

The "Moulton case" was bad for wv and many good editors and custodians also left the project because of your "founder" blocking, if you haven't noticed that. And now it comes for the second time:-(((--Juan de Vojníkov 08:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * See here. Jimmy, you need to talk before doing things like this, not demand that people talk to you before undoing it. --SB_Johnny talk 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should tell us what the block was for before going ahead and doing it. I know you are allowed to use your Founder rights, but it is the community's interest to know why a certain user was blocked. I would appreciate if you clarified the reason of the block. Pmlineditor   ∞  11:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think whether the actions are appropriate or not, that these actions are harmful to the Wikiversity community because it tends to fracture and polarize the community, and good contributors leave. People don't really know you here, and thus I doubt the community would trust you with custodian/sysop tools if you were to go through the normal Wikiversity process. I believe these are part of the reasons why even stewards are not suppose to act on local projects unless it is an emergency situation and there are no sysops available to act. -- dark lama  11:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with above - more information and discussion first, please. What's the background/history? What other related events have occurred on other WMF projects? What's the related policy? Why is this done by founder as opposed to say working through the local community and/or stewards? Is this way WMF "best practice"? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A note
You have stated: "The key is that this needs to be a serious, responsible, professional project, and not a haven for "breaching experiments" and attacks on Wikipedians."

However, I deleted the material of the project 12 days before you arrived. This was known by both the community and RTG that the page was deleted before RTG posted on your user talk page. RTG's post at your user talk page was completely misleading and did not state the actuality of the situation.

Wikiversity does not host guides on how to sock puppet. Wikiversity does not encourage sock puppetry or the violation of rules at other Wikimedia projects. I ensured that these two statements were true. I ensured that these two statements were true 12 days before you came to this project.

I am saddened that RTG failed to mention this. I am saddened that the already solved matter, with Privatemusings promising to discontinue any promotion of problematic behavior, was reopened in such a fashion. I am saddened that no one bothered to come to me first, even though I already ensured that there would not be another Moulton like situation. I doubt you will see this note, since you only use Wikipedia and I am unable to post on your talk page there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, rest assured - I appreciate your efforts, which were certainly steps in the right direction.--Jimbo Wales 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on closure
Dear Mr. Wales! I had some questions here and I would be glad, if you can find some time to answer them. Thank you! --Gbaor 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour in Wikiversity
Dear Mr. Wales, this is my second post on your talk page. So I hope, that you will answer it. I am very sad seeing your recent activity in here. If every Wikimedian will disagree with the way were wv is going, he will use a Meta to talk about the problem. So be so kind and follow the way of every other Wikipedia, please. Well, you are the founder of Wikipedia, but that does not nominate you to be upper than every simple Wikimedian.

You probably don't mind that your first blocking disrupted the English Wikiversity community and it looks like you don't think about your deeds in here, and what you are saying. Your deeds in here are disrupting Wikiversity community again and your words about stopping the project endamage the project itself. In this case, I hope the Wikimedia Foundation will dissociate from you.

So this is my warning to you Mr. Wales, if you will continue to violate and destabilize the project, I should block you. So I hope that after the potential provision from my side to Mr. Jimmy Wales, other custodians will behave like a man/woman and not continue of blocking. If so it is your way…--Juan de Vojníkov 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not my intention to destabilize the project, it is my intention to support those who want to see it flourish and succeed.  The first step toward that is to draw a firm line against trolling.--Jimbo Wales 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. If there is a full support of WMF it is how it is. But it is important to note, that the way which WMF used to change this project was not good and leads to destabilization. I don't think that users such as Gbaor, SB Johnny or McCormack wanted Wikiversity to be the place promoting range. But they are gone, because of your interventions. So as its mentioned below, it would be better to establish the direct communication between English Wikiversity (or Wikiversities?) and Wikimedia Foundation. Maybe some people who are neutral might be elected for this.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Mr. Wales, I would like to have a point clarified. Did you get foundation authorisation before or after your sysop actions without community support?  Regards.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation" <-- I'd like to see a public record of the vote by the Board where the Board members all agreed that someone from outside of the Wikiversity community can, in a non-emergency situation, over-ride the Wikiversity community procedures for page deletion, blocking and desysoping. --JWSchmidt 14:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Sue Gardener's statement that Jimbo had the backing of the WMF would be enough to validate that he had the authority of the WMF. Sue Gardner has the authority to make such declarations. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking for cross-wiki issues
If you block for cross-wiki issues, could you please include a link(s) to relevant discussion, presumably on to facilitate review by others here? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it's fine. Do we really need to let obvious trolls who try to disrupt multiple WM projects here? Pmlineditor   ∞  07:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I think it is much more important to focus on real policy changes, and the issues around that are sufficiently subtle and complex that thoughtful people will have a hard enough time sorting it out without wasting a ton of time dealing with people who clearly aren't here primarily to contribute to the goals of Wikiversity, but rather primarily to disrupt.--Jimbo Wales 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Jtneill, I guess pertinent info could be found here or here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The question is if the community agrees with cross-wiki issues for blocking. If Jimbo Wales would be an elected wv custodian, I would not set this question. But as he was not elected by the community its important to know, if he respect the wv-way.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeh, I guess the issue for me is that if the founder blocks indef and cites cross-wiki issues without links to evidence or rationale or consensus, then as a custodian do I (a) assume good faith and judgement on the part of the founder and just carry on (ignore); (b) take my own time to investigate and satisfy myself whether this action is the best way; (c) start a community review to check/clarify whether good action has been taken; (d) raise/followup the issue on meta. We haven't had much experience in the past with founder-level actions, so we are learning about this now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with the WMF board
Could you advise about how the WV community might have direct, open, productive discussion with the WMF board about the project? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You could email them? But I can tell you that there is no ongoing discussion of Wikiversity going on there now, and no pending actions.--Jimbo Wales 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think email counts as a means for "open" discussion - it'd only be between sender and recipient without 'external' contribution or viewing, i.e. by the rest of the community. — Kurr 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any way to talk to the board as a whole other than by email. But possibly you have in mind the wrong party for discussion?  I mean, is it really the board you want to talk to?  The board does not get involved in the details of day to day project management.--Jimbo Wales 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Kurr seems to be an SPA.--Jimbo Wales 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a few contributions on Wikipedia, and, if I recall correctly, I have some contribs dotted around some Wikia wikis. I'm active on other independent wikis under another username, but I'd rather not divulge that information. I like keeping an eye on the Signpost on Wikipedia, which is how I came about editing here. I'm not sure whether you're assuming bad faith with your conclusion, but I'll assume good faith and assume you're not assuming bad faith. Or something. But anyway, I'm not sure why that is significant :p. — Kurr 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to block User:Kurr for being a sock puppet. Of his limited cross wiki edits, this shows that he created a monobook from his first edit, which is something a new person lacks the capability of doing. Jumping over here and involving himself in politics shows the actions of a good hand/bad hand type of socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the point of showing off some of our fancy tools: .  Philippe (WMF) 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. It's good to see input from Sue, Sj etc. now appearing on the Community Review as well. That's basically what I was after/hoping for so that WV users can better understand what is/was being discussed about WV at WMF board level - and have some direct, open conversation about that. (I'm generally not a big fan of email/IRC etc. - I'd rather see our sharings out in the open.) -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the chain of WMF command (is there an org. chart?) - who is ultimately responsible for WV? Is it the board or the CEO or someone else? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ultimately responsible" is the board, for everything. The board gives advice and guidance to Sue, but she's the CEO and manages the organization on a day to day basis. In terms of the details of policy here it would be quite unusual for either Sue or the board to get involved. (Indeed, it's quite unusual for me to get involved, and I plan to be out of your hair as soon as possible.)--Jimbo Wales 10:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Thekohser
Thekohser has made a request on his talk page to be unblocked. Whilst I note that you've made it clear to SB Johnny that he shouldn't be unblocked, I'd welcome some clarification regarding this issue. Would it be appropriate to consider this request or should it simply be declined? Would there ever be an appropriate time or set of conditions which would allow for him to be unblocked to contribute here if he wishes? Adambro 15:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have addessed this here so thanks for the clarification of the situation. Adambro 10:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

something that gave me an ironic smile :-)
G'day Jimbo - I posted on my talk page in response to your feeling that I had been rude to you, and I didn't really have the intention to pop by here, but stumbled across this diff on my wiki travels this arvo. - reading the end of the 1st para, it raised a smile with me that you considered the application of a 'fact' tag to be rude - as I mentioned at my talk page, I'd hoped it was clear that I was trying to make / reiterate a substantive point in good humour - really that you should clarify what you mean by 'before I took action on Wikiversity, I sought, and obtained, the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation' - who did you speak to, and what did they say?

We have a situation currently where it's difficult or impossible to arrange for a photo of a 16 year old girl masturbating to be removed from commons servers (I'd appreciate your support by the way in ensuring that the existence of that photo is reported to an appropriate agency) - but the foundation can very quickly act to support the deletion of a page here on wikiversity... silly huh.

Anywhoo, I'm sorry you found me rude, I'm usually trying to be witty when that happens, and I guess some feel that I'm half way there - perhaps, as you mentioned, you'd prefer I told you, with a smile and a wink, of course, to fuck off? ;-) cheers, Privatemusings 06:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) this entire post is sent in good humour also, if for any reason it can't be received in that spirit, please feel free to remove it, Jimbo :-)

Is my page a violation?
Dear Jimbo or trusted associate: Wikiversity is attempting to get w:Wikipedia:Wiki Ed installed on Wikiversity. Does this attempt at a workaround violate Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? I hope not. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't see how this could be perceived as a disruption. It looks like a good faith attempt to advance learning. The extension appears to require quite a bit of work before it can move forward here. --mikeu talk 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks mikeu. I had two concerns:  (1) it would be misinterpreted as a workaround, and (2) others might misuse the software.   Regarding (2), the need to program wikitext in a high level language will render any misuse so awkward that nobody will bother.  It's like the joke about two brothers in the woods where the older one explains that he will run away if they see a bear.  When the younger brother points out that nobody can outrun a bear, and the older brother responds, "But I can outrun you".  There are much easier ways to make mischief on Wikipedia.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of "enrolling" you in a course
A while back I created a wiki-node at wright.miraheze.org and created private wikis for college students to use. I added a link to your Wikiversity user page, but stated that you were not involved in any way. Feel free to request a deletion. (Page is at https://wright000.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page ) --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss page deletion policy
As per a more detailed email I just sent you, a discussion that might interest you has been started at Requests_for_Deletion. -- Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jimbo Wales


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

I've only known JW a short while, but sincerely hope that my instinct that he will respond to this without feeling overly stressed / attacked / upset is accurate. This is far, far from a neutral 'review' in my book, and I don't think it's healthy really. I'm happy to discuss why I think that, and ideas for ways forward, after a moment of reflection. Privatemusings 23:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Jimbo Wales
Today, Jimbo Wales said, "One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals."

I know it may somehow be stated that this is not a case study, and I have a question: is there any notable people here on Wikiversity involved with this case? I don't know, but I look at this and think based on Wales's idea that the person clearly named in the title of this page is notable. It is obvious that those that wrote this page actually feel otherwise. Hmmm.

If this page could be presented in hypothetic statements, it is not ready. I suggest recovery before someone gets hurt, and I feel what Jimbo Wales said above in his idea is a recovery step that all participants agree upon.

Sorry, I know you all probably hate me now for pointing this out. Dzonatas 00:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi, Dzonatas. Good question, and one with some good answers. It is mainly a question of appropriate forums, appropriate authority, appropriate circumstances and appropriate means. The behaviour criticised by Jimbo is the poor habit of dressing up mainspace attack pages as "learning projects" and aiming them at people who have not done any serious wrong. What we have here is placed in an appropriate forum (subpage of the "request custodian action" page in the Wikiversity namespace); it is properly authorised by several bureaucrats and was indeed requested by JWS himself; and the need for and quality of the review is hopefully very much higher than those bogus "case studies". I hope this answer is satisfactory. --McCormack 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck out the word "bogus" as I must admit I haven't had time to read and analyse all of them. My adjective was too sweeping. --McCormack 06:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could not have a community discussion about an issue that some members of the community find problematic, we could not have a functional community. This is quite different from a "learning project" - even if we (as I do) hope to learn something from it. Cormaggio talk 08:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Behavior reviews are quite common at Wikipedia: reviewing proposals for adminship, reviewing blocks on users, reviewing the behavior of admins, etc. This is administrative in nature, and something Wales clearly supports.  The Jade Knight 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"" - Time changes
Time changes. Many of these complaints are on edits in the earlier history of wikiversity, in a time when policies, established practices and even participants were fewer.

It has often been said that policies in the English wikipedia (and many other projects) should be and are descriptive, not prescriptive. It can also be argue that John Schmidt was making some of these, edits in good faith as representing the community practices; and he was just taking the "bold" part of the "consensus flowchart":.

Wikiversitians interested in such matters have had plenty of time to review the matters.This has indeed taken place to some of the edits. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi, Hillgentleman. It would be nice to assume good faith. The incident which points in a different direction is the case when JWS tried to prevent SB_Johnny from de-officialising the incorrectly officialised policy, and the kind of arguments JWS deployed on that occasion against the recognition of consensus (case 21). --McCormack 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The emotional Erkan
I find this a very very sad moment for Wikiversity - this is not a point which I thought Wikiversity would reach one day. "What outcome does everyone want here?" (copy+paste) Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erkan, I'm also very sad, and I'm hurting for Wikiversity. My ideal outcome here would be that we can learn from our experiences, and endeavour to make Wikiversity stronger as a result. I hope John will continue to play a central role in that process. Cormaggio talk 08:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

 * I posted asking you to cool it as you were posting on 2 pages (several posts here, and one particularly sarcastic post here), when you were taking a very snide approach to several of your fellow contributors. You responded with a sarcastic comment on my talk, and then started in with the whole "pony meme" thing. Given the way you had just treated other people who were being critical of how you were approaching this, why on earth would I assume you would engage in constructive dialog with me (especially since you had already thrown two barbs)? You've been "throwing your weight around" very inappropriately lately, and if you want to use this confrontational style, you should not also be holding tools (it's the difference between holding a pair of pruners while talking, and holding a pair of pruners while yelling). --SB_Johnny talk 08:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * SB_Johnny: Yes, both you and KC are experts at gaming the system by not answering questions asked of you by other editors...its a great way to throw your weight around. When you play that game, I'll point it out. Its your choice. Its your game. Of course, you could just try talking to other people. --JWSchmidt 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * That reply is a good example, actually. 'Nuff said. --SB_Johnny talk 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Johnny,  There seems to be much misunderstanding in these discussions.  Which was the first comment that you found sarcastic?  Hillgentleman|Talk 10:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've forked
Since McCormack won't let me edit his page, I've moved to this page. --JWSchmidt 08:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not insinuate that this is "my" page; you were continually posting your talk page comments in inappropriate places, so I kindly made some subpage links for you, hyperlinked from exactly the introductory sections you wished to comment on. These were edits designed to help you express yourself fairly without disrupting the page. I wish you would see that I was trying to help. --McCormack 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier if all the the discussion is on one page, and reserve the talk page for discussion of the discussion? --SB_Johnny talk 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe JWSchmidt's comments should be included on this page. That said, I do not think they belong where they were placed, above all the case studies, but after: let the "evidence" be presented, and then let JWSchmidt prepare counter evidence (either section-by-section, in the appropriate place, or down at the bottom in one go, or a combination of the two).  The Jade Knight 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jade Knight. Yes - I came to a similar conclusion as you. I reckoned that rather than putting his comments down that page under evidence or at the bottom, it would be fairer to add a more prominent link within the pertinent section - did you see my subpage links for JWS? I think I was trying to be even more accommodating to his needs by letting him have a couple of links right up near the top of the page. --McCormack 08:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A side note here: I do believe very strongly in fair procedure, and will try hard to ensure that this is permitted. --McCormack 09:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he should at least also get a link under every case study to respond; unless, of course, he is welcome to respond to specific case studies here (which would be better). The Jade Knight 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the "discussion" sections are supposed to be for just that purpose. I think (using my vaunted ESP powers) that McCormack didn't want subheadings and signed comments in the preamble sections. Both sides are sensible though: comments on the preamble are essentially comments about the page itself (and so should be on the talk page), but there are points and claims made in the preamble that may need responding to (and thus should be on the content page). As long as it's somewhere easy to find, all's fine IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. So he's welcome to post under the case studies, but for the headers he should post on the sub-pages or talk pages?  That sounds reasonable to me.  The Jade Knight 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McCormack: I did not post talk page comments. Your repeated reversion of my edits shows your attempt to own the page. Fine, its all yours. --JWSchmidt 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JWS. When one edits a wiki, one can normally see which sections are for discussion/comment and which are not by the way previous users have edited a page. If people are signing their names, it's a discussion section. One doesn't normally add signed comments in sections of project pages where people are not signing, because that's part of the main text. However if a project page has a special section marked out for discussion, one can add signed comments there. You seemed to wish to put a signed comment in a main content section where other users were not signing and which was not marked out for discussion. This makes it a talk page comment. However I tried to create a prominent place for you where you could nevertheless have a project page at your disposal, but you declined to use it. --McCormack 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McCormack: you created a device for poisoning the well in your page. I tried to correct the problem and you reverted me. You own the page. Have fun. --JWSchmidt 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JWS. I do not think that correcting your misplaced edits is sufficient evidence of page ownership. Many editors have constructively edited your review page without the need for intervention by custodians; there has only been one editor who has caused trouble. I have endeavoured to modify the page to give you plenty of opportunity to express your views with decorum. --McCormack 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw men
I know this page seems exhaustive, but I've seen no explicit discussion of JWSchmidt's use of straw men. Would this be an appropriate forum to discuss them? The Jade Knight 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, please just get it all out in the open so we can discuss it and move on :-). --SB_Johnny talk 08:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not really interested in digging up all examples, but I've already pointed out 4 examples of him using straw men in this very section. The Jade Knight 09:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, there can't possibly be many more ;-). I meant to say that if something's bothering you and you want to add a section about it, you should of course do that. --SB_Johnny talk 10:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, it bothers me, but making those sections look like a lot of work. The Jade Knight 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * You can start by describing what bothers you here in the talk page. Don't let the section structure put you off, if there are things that are bothering you.  It can always be copied to a section later.  --mikeu talk 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I have moved the comments by Jade Knight and KillerChihuahua into case 41. I believe this reflects their wishes. --McCormack 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I am worried by the tone of this thread:

If this project page is to be a review of John Schmidt's contributions, why are his errors scrutinised in such details but none of his positive contributions? A one-sided picture would often skew the perspectives and the weights of the matters.Hillgentleman|Talk 10:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. What you linked to was not a thread, but a single (minor) edit.  I'll assume you were referring to the thread, however, and not the edit.
 * 2. It may be perfectly appropriate to make a section on JWSchmidt's "good deeds".  That said, a lot of good does not excuse a lot of bad in a custodian at Wikiversity.  The reason his usage of straw men is particularly troubling to me is because using straw men is a rhetorically effective but dishonest way of arguing.  It is, in the world of logical discourse, tantamount to lying.  The Jade Knight 10:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused
There is something else bugging me about this, and I don't know if SB Johnny has considered what I'm about to say. There are these two pages Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Loud and Combative and Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Controversy or disruption that have questionable content in the history. I moved/forked the pages, but I'm not really the author of the content of those. I know the subject of this review is also not the author of the content of those pages, either. Given the questionable nature of that content in comparison to the weight of the recent block action and "dressed up" nature (as stated earlier on this page), I'm confused to why SB Johnny granted sysop bits to the author of that content but then asked to take away the bits of the subject of this review. Something just doesn't add up about that, and that kind of alienated me, and I think it needs to be pointed out before we move on. Parody can be quite intimidating at times, but I still feel that the subject of this review did not cross the line to purposely antagonize someone as so directly stated in the "dressed up" nature of the two case studies. I know someone is going respond to this about the weight of case enumeration on this review, so I'll just ask if it has been noted the amount of "learning resources," that the subject of this review, has created and the amount of "learning resources," that the author of those two "dressed up case studies" who has received sysop bits, has created? Dzonatas 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The main difference in my eyes is that one individual has publicly apologized and changed tack, ie, there is a clear indication that such activities will no longer be created. Moreover, the author of those two pages has requested deletion of them so that the offending material will no longer exist at Wikiversity.  If JWSchmidt had apologized, entirely changed his way of approaching Wikiversity, and deleted his controversial "learning" projects, this review would never have happened.  That said, I do think it was a little premature to give Salmon of Doubt those "bits" so quickly; I would have given him at least a few more weeks to prove himself.  The Jade Knight 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * (after e/c) Looks to me like he created some content, was accused of contributing in bad faith, and then redacted when he felt his contributions weren't being taken seriously (or perhaps taken the wrong way), and then they were re-added by someone else with accusatory additions. He requested deletion, but thus far no-one has obliged, and he of course won't because he's an involved party. I personally won't delete because it's too much work to parse out where that content came from and what it's for. He should be given the courtesey of not participating in a project where he feels his contributions are being dismissed and mocked though, don't you think? Bring it up on requests for deletion for discussion there if you want to resolve it. --SB_Johnny talk 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. Dzonatas 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


text: File:Broocat.jpg

title: File:Broocat.jpg


text:
Wikiversity:Random/Water plant

page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info).

If you are here by mistake, click your browser's back button.

title: Wikiversity:Random/Water plant


text:
User talk:English123456

 Hello English123456, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --mikeu talk 02:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:English123456


text:
Indigenous Australian psychology

Indigenous Australian psychology is a small, but actively growing field. It seeks to readdress issues for Indigenous Australian peoples arising from colonisation and to explore and understand the knowledges of Indigenous people.

Stolen Generation
Between 1910 and 1970, approximately 100,000 Australian Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their families and communities (between one in three and one in ten children were removed). Read these accounts of personal stolen generation experiences:
 * John
 * Millicent

title: Indigenous Australian psychology


text: User:Stephanmason~enwikiversity/Spanish

title: User:Stephanmason~enwikiversity/Spanish


text:
Talk:Futures studies

Move to topic namespace under interdisciplinary studies? Emesee 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Futures studies


text:
Category talk:Schools

It seems like some of these maybe shouldn't be schools and would be more appropriate as topics. Emesee 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Free Education
Free Education Providers. Working Folks Grammar School & College Peshawar-I (Boys). Free Education in all aspects, only for labor's children. 17:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Sajeel.awan1 (discuss • contribs)

Communication Science
Hi, where do i find the school of communication science, how do i add this category ( I'm a communication science student) --Bobbyshabangu (talk) 02 November 2013 6:22 CTC

The Wikiversity School of Evaluation
I want to start creating courses to put all the knowledge I am gaining as a MA student at Claremont Graduate University to work.

Recently, CGU's evaluation program is part of its School of Behavioral & Organizational Sciences, but I believe that the field will break out soon.

I agree with some other posters here that some of the things considered "schools" should be topics - and I am open to moving the 'School of Eval' under another school in the future.

If anyone has any advice on how to coordinate cleanup on these categories, I am interested – research on how to categorize academic disciplines may be part of my evaluation research.

This wiki seems pointless
I don't see why this wiki is needed when this exists: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Schools. I propose that this wiki is deleted and that relevent information on this page show up on other pages if it doesn't already.

--ttam (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Categories collect and organize other pages. If we didn't have this category, the page at Schools would be useless.  There's more integration behind the scenes than meets the eye.  Keep asking questions, but don't assume things are useless just because the use isn't obvious at first sight.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Schools


text:
Wikiversity:Civility/Extension 0.1

''This was the first draft. Please only edit Civility/Extension 0.2! This one is just for the record.'' --McCormack 06:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: the discussion at the above link is no longer active. --mikeu talk 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity:Civility/Extension 0.1