text:
Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/11

Ecolig
I'm going to throw this here for discussion. It was removed from Wikipedia a few times, is the originator of most of the content here, and is very close to this, and I suspect the writers of that are connected to this page (as the sources are almost duplicated). It is not only extremely complicated/not understandable, but it is promotional of an idea that is very fringe and rather strange. It combines classical ideas about words with modern linguistics and computer technology in a very weird way. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think these are good reasons for improvement rather than deletion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete Reading through this it doesn't strike me as something that can be improved. While not very scientific, google searches turn up nothing tub the original paper published above.  Things to consider is that the page is in poor shape and abandoned by its creator, and the paper which in which it is a copy has doesn't seem to have stimulated any new research.
 * All of these are qualitative statements and rather off of the point. Overall reading threw this I am lead to the conclusion that the page exists solely to promote the paper cited above.  I think it is important to encourage real learning and discourage self promotion.  If the page had stimulated any discussion or involvement form the community it may be a different matter, but as it stands I think this page should be deleted. Thenub314 22:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Confirm it to OTRS. Well, if it is coping something its a license violation. In that case first of all it should be confirmed to OTRS, that original author permit it to distribute under wv license conditions. Than as an original research it can stay. Maybe elsewhere we can talk, how to manage strange or queer theories.--Juan de Vojníkov 06:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete if copyvio Summarily delete if copyvio. Geoff Plourde 09:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Geoff, the history shows you as the only editor. What happened here? Did you write this? Why did you put it here? --Abd 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I pruned the copyright violations from the article, then Diego Grez deleted the history. Geoff Plourde 19:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is room for improvement, but I don't see how it can be turned into an actual learning resource (not an article), meaning it doesn't fit in to WV in my opinion. And if it's a copyvio, that's an obvious reason for deletion. --Trinity507 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd like to study the topic, so I'll learn if nobody else. I will rewrite it as a review of the paper if needed. So, if anyone fears there is copyvio, please blank the page and leave a note that it will be worked on. A link to the article should be placed . (Copyvio in history is not a reason to delete a page. It happens all the time.) This is good material for Wikiversity. --Abd 02:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When the initial work starts off as a copyright violation works are usually deleted, unless permission is obtained for use under a compatible license. Works are not deleted only when copyright violations are added later on without resolution, but in that case the revision that contains the copyright violation is typically revision deleted or possibly oversighted. Doing more than blanking the page makes sense if its been a copyright violation from the initial submission. -- dark lama  10:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Magazine that discussed Ecolig is a peer reviewed educational journal for and by students. I think Wikiversity was created for people like that in mind. I think this topic is within scope and anyone should be able to write on this topic without prejudice, even if the page in its current form has to be deleted due to copyright. -- dark lama  10:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Are people still working on this or is it just complete as is? I find it too confusing to be useful. Anonymous Uploader 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fringe can sometimes make an excellent learning resource, but this page is in poor shape and nobody is working with it. Guido den Broeder 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Revise "Fringe" is not a relevant argument here. The article was mangled by users attempting to remove copyvio, and the revisions hidden. This page can become a resource about the article's topic, pointing to the original article and creating a seminar to discuss it. That can be done with ordinary editing, it does not require the deletion tool. I'll go ahead and do it. --Abd 18:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Restore revision history. The revision deletion history here has removed attribution, a no-no; even if revision content were going to be removed (not necessarily required), the editor names should not have been hidden, the custodian was new and a bit clumsy sometimes. I was going to suggest that this be userfied. Was it created by a registered user? The "copyvio" claim is based on what our user claims is his paper. Blanking might have been appropriate, but the revision deletion violates licensing and makes it impossible to work out how to keep this. From the history and from the Talk page, this seems to have been created by User:Paulomiguel, and a Paulo Miguel is indeed the author of the paper which is the source for the copyvio claim. He's discussed this on that Talk page. Reading that, the user seems to have received a bit of a rude welcome. Juan de Vojníkov tried to help, some, but the revision deletion, I can say, would have put me off my feed as a newcomer, on top of the RfD. --Abd 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. The attribution would have been incorrect if it is a copyright violation. What licensing does RevisionDeletion violate? CC-BY-SA 3.0? GFDL? Merely hosting it here and Wikiversity and attributing it to the wrong author, if it is the wrong author, is in violation of the licenses put forth by the source paper itself. TeleComNasSprVen 23:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the matter stands, the page content is attributed to Geoff Plourde, see . Page content is, on the face, if nothing else is given, attributed to the editor who put it up. Did Geoff do this? Sure, if it's the wrong author there would be a license violation, and Geoff Plourde is definitely the wrong author. The IP editor who actually put the content up is probably the real author. There may still be a violation, or not, but what the history provides is definitely wrong. Is there any problem with restoring the revision history, or putting a note on the Talk page? (If I'm correct, the revision history can show attribution without showing the allegedly problematic revision content.) This problem was created by Diego Grez, a probationary custodian at the time, who deleted the revision history. That was not necessary, I'd claim. But if it was, and content originated by that IP was left, as it was, then the IP should have been attributed. --Abd 02:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Geoff Plourde restored the revision history today. It was not an IP editor, it was Paulomiguel, as I mentioned above, I don't know why I thought it was IP. --Abd 20:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Summary of the above. I'd close this, but I'm involved.
 * The original nomination asserted similarity to the deleted Wikipedia article, and that the concepts were "weird." The Wikipedia deletion cited was largely because the article was original research, not allowed at Wikipedia, but which can be actively encouraged here. Weirdness of concepts is not an argument for deletion here
 * Similar material was published in an IEEE journal for student papers, implying that the author, likely our editor, is or was a student. We allow original research here. If material is presented in a way that makes it appear that the concepts are generally accepted, when they are not, this would be a problem, but this is easy to address with ordinary editing and framing.
 * Copyright violation was asserted. I have not reviewed the content specifically for this, but the author claimed, in his talk page comment, that this article was original. It used, however, the same or similar sources, which is what was asserted above as being a reason to think it was copied. Geoff Plourde went over the article and removed what he thought might be copyvio. A complication is that some publishers explicitly allow authors to publish preprints, which can be the same textual content as the published article. Checking the journal author instructions, I found no reference either way. What I know from an experienced web site administrator, who often puts up preprints, is that he relies upon author statements of right to permit reproduction. As a nonprofit, he's secure from legal consequences of inadvertent copyvio; if an author has misled him, he is nevertheless protected from charges of willful copyright violation, if he promptly complies with a takedown notice. What he's found is that if he writes the publishers for permission -- which he does, that also protects him -- they most commonly do not respond at all. They gain nothing by responding, but suffer more labor expense. If he depended on formal publisher permission in addition to the author's statement, he'd likely have to delay and reject much good material, leading to bad feelings from submitting authors (some of whom are venerable scientists, he really doesn't want to offend them). He only publishes material submitted by original authors.
 * The comments can be broken down into covering two issues: copyvio and content.
 * As to copyright, everyone would agree that if the article is clearly copyvio, it should be deleted, but nobody actually claimed that it was clearly so, it was all conditional, i.e., if copyvio, delete. There was a suggestion to go to OTRS, but we might not even have sufficient evidence of copyvio to require that. If someone believes this page is copyvio, a speedy deletion tag to that effect can be put up, and evidence of copyvio asserted on the attached Talk page. Only if dispute remains would this come back here.
 * There were four comments for deletion based on content. We have the nomination re "weird", a Delete !vote that was based on apparent ignorance of the prior publication, i.e., the original paper on this topic had passed peer review, a Delete !vote based on "I don't see how it can be turned into an actual learning resource (not an article), implying that articles cannot be learning resources, and a !vote based on "Fringe" and that the page is in "poor shape." Poor shape can be fixed, and our guidelines suggest that if a page can be fixed, if there is some core of value to keep, it should be kept. Fringe is not a valid deletion argument here, though fringe requires some caution, it may require some framing work (which is easy).
 * There were four comments that accepted the content (if the copyvio problem is resolved). Most clearly, Darklama wrote: The Magazine that discussed Ecolig is a peer reviewed educational journal for and by students. I think Wikiversity was created for people like that in mind. I think this topic is within scope and anyone should be able to write on this topic without prejudice.... I agree, and if this discussion closes without deletion, I intend to invite the author, personally, to help improve this page and to otherwise participate in Wikiversity. We can definitely be more welcoming!
 * I personally have no doubt but that this should be kept at this point. --Abd 22:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT FEATURES OF WIKIVERSITY
Not useful, redundant, inappropriately placed and titled, too much work to extract any useful educational content, if there is any. Speedy deletion tag reverted by TeleComNasSprVen, hence this nomination. --Abd 19:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete though there are better ways to resolve this situation (example) TeleComNasSprVen 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That example was userfied, to the user space of the registered author, who has other edits. Where would the subject page be userfied? It was created as the only edit by an IP editor. If TCNSV thinks that the content is useful, he's welcome to put it in his own user space and take responsibility for it. I'd withdraw my nomination. There are, indeed, other options, but I've proposed the simplest. --Abd 04:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think much of the text could be integrated with Wikimedia and/or Wikimedia Foundation and Wikiversity. It looks to me as though the author has kindly popped it up on Wikiversity after writing the text for use in a separate document. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Deleted after no opposition for three months. Text is in the sandbox if anyone wants to find it a home. --Draicone (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to add anything that isn't made clear elsewhere. Thenub314 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nub. –SJ + > 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-pinfo
Unused template. TeleComNasSprVen 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second nomination. Prior nomination was closed without prejudice due to lapse of time with no response. --Abd 21:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template is intended to be used with substitution, which then leaves no link to the template. We cannot then tell that it is unused by the lack of links. (I'll note, however, that I found no text in a search that came from this template, but that doesn't mean that the template is useless. Is there a better one?) The first nomination was closed because no response had been made, and the original nomination did not state a reason for deletion, and it seemed to be, in context of the time, a poke at or comment on Moulton. This time, renominating, TCNSV has added "unused" as a reason, but other nominations have recently covered the problem of usage to substitute complex text, see the current: . I urge TCNSV to withdraw this renomination. --Abd 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for Inquisitorial
Funny, but no. The current Community Review system replaces this old, unused so called "Inquisition Committee", and there haven't been that many custodians to patrol dispute resolution on Wikiversity let alone fill this committee's slots either. TeleComNasSprVen 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be fitting and ironic to launch exactly one instance of the Spammish Inquisition for the purpose of reviewing and discarding as unwise the hoary practice of holding Spammish Inquisitions. —Moulton 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Process page for a failed proposal, not needed. --Abd 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This was created by a single user and never considered by the community. It has been replaced by WV:CR in practice. --mikeu talk 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Inquisitor Committee
Too much of Wikipedia-ness, doesn't really belong here. Was started by one Dark Obsidian and never improved since. TeleComNasSprVen 16:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could Dark Obsidian chair the Inquisitor Committee convened to abolish the unwise tradition of hosting Spammish Inquisitions? —Moulton 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark as rejected proposal. So far. There may be a need for such a committee, but the committee doesn't exist yet. For starters, while "Inquisitor Committee" might even be accurate, as to a possible committee function, the name is ... chilling, and carries unnecessary implications. "Committee of Inquiry," for example, wouldn't carry those implications.... It's been proposed that this page be merged with CR. No. CR is the equivalent of w:WP:RFC, whereas the committee would be somewhat equivalent to the WP Arbitration Committee. In practice, it could be quite different. --Abd 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it a little bit funny. WIKIADVERSITY 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File this one under "Comedy of Terrors." —Albatross 10:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This was created by a single user and never considered by the community. It has been replaced by WV:CR in practice. --mikeu talk 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * this was written by a very young person who probably didn't fully understand the connotations of "inquisition". If there's no objection, I'd like to just move this to his userspace and delete the redirects. There's nothing harmful here, just not really appropriate for the project namespace. --SB_Johnny talk 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection, SBJ. How about looking at the deletion request above at the same time? --Abd 00:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Note: with the close, SBJ moved the page to User:Dark Obsidian/Wikiversity:Inquisitor Committee, redirect suppressed. --Abd 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Openness and collaboration
Consists of assumptions stated as facts about the general motives and practices of Wikiversity, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia participants. I believe this page is to complain about people again and not a good faith attempt to educate people. When I attempted to improve the page by turning the assumptions into open questions that might encourage collaboration, the assumptions were restored and new generalized assumptions about what the changes mean about people were added. Is this how people should be encouraged to use Wikiversity? -- dark lama  12:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I looked; but I could not find evidence for your claims. WAS 4.250 12:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * What do you make of the methods section? Some links: before, intermediate (diff), and after diff -- dark lama  12:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * While I did see the earlier versions of the page as something of a creatively posed loaded question, I thought darklama's improved version had at least some promise (assuming more contributors could be attracted to it), though the later addition of the "discussion" section might make the project hard to jump into. Is the argument here that the resource will not be able to grow and prosper because of one of the participants? Why not simply remove the problematic section? --SB_Johnny talk 13:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the section because it had previously been edited, only to be restored. I believe the restoration demonstrates what the intention for the page is. I am asking if the intention, as other people see it, is within Wikiversity's scope. I have no idea what or how one participant may or may not effect the page, I do not have a crystal ball. Do you think this is a participant issue? -- dark lama  19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, intentions aside, it is an interesting topic. In fact, the original version of the page could be put forth as an example when discussing hostility. I just don't see a deletion reason here in this case and at this point.
 * And yes, I do think it might be a participant issue, but in that case the focus should be on the participant, not on the resource. --SB_Johnny talk 20:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The Wikiversity community needs to explore why Darklama and SB Johnny are now disrupting a learning project that was created in response to a call by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for openness and correction of systemic problems that have disrupted participation at Wikimedia projects. Darklama did not make use of the discussion page, instead he came here to delete the page and state his assumptions of bad faith. Darklama could try learning how to edit collaboratively rather than delete the contributions of Wikiversity community members. SB Johnny claims that the "discussion" section might make the project hard to jump into. SB Johnny, the point of the learning project is to encourage discussion of what has disrupted Wikiversity for the past two years. SB Johnny would better serve the Wikiversity community by stopping this disruption a community improvement initiative that was called for by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Disruption of this Wikiversity discussion about openness only damages the Wikiversity project and further embarrasses the Wikimedia Foundation. "Is this how people should be encouraged to use Wikiversity?" <-- Openness is the path forward that was selected by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Attempts by a few misguided sysops to hide the truth and prevent discussion are not constructive. --JWSchmidt 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To study Openness and collaboration, collaborate. JWS, are you exemplifying what you want the rest of us to imitate? Or does "openness and collaboration" mean "I'm right and you are wrong, let me tell you all the bad stuff you have done, and the hundred ways I'm right?" Where do you expect that approach to lead? --Abd 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I really agree with Abd here: the original version had a very hostile tone, and I think darklama's efforts to change that tone were admirable. The foundation's resolution includes a call for "practices to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior", and I think that's exactly what darklama's contributions achieved. There's definitely an opportunity to openly collaborate about openness and collaboration here, but not in the form of loaded questions. --SB_Johnny talk 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SB Johnny, please explain what was "very hostile" in this version. "efforts to change that tone" <-- Darklama removed a key question: "will participation at Wikimedia wikis continue to be disrupted?", thus disrupting Wikiversity. Darklama removed the study topics for the learning project, completely disrupting the learning project. Darklama removed the page section Proposals for change, again disrupting the learning project's structure and goals. SB Johnny, you also removed the study topics for the learning project and the discussion section, again disrupting the project. The Wikiversity community needs to explore why a few misguided syops disrupt Wikiversity and derail the mission of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 13:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. This is what Darklama is talking about, WAS. While JWSchmidt has been (low level) revert warring on this page, that's a behavioral issue, not a keep/delete issue. The solution isn't deletion, per se, Darklama, though if it proves to be impossible to have a resource on "Openness and collaboration," without causing WikiWar III, then we could revisit this. However, I certainly don't believe it's impossible, and if a user is making it difficult, through tendentious editing, then that's the problem, not the concept of study of the topic. Wikiversity is covered by the overall neutrality policy of the WMF, and the removed section was polemic and was far from neutral. It is possible to have polemic or non-neutral material as subpages, under some conditions, but on the top level, as it was, this violated neutrality. Whenever there is polemic or POV material, it should be attributed as the opinion of the author, and not merely in edit history. This is better done, with less disruption, as subpages. What JWS has done is to put up what amounts to a list of personal grievances, without balance. That's not the place for this, and I'm sad to see JWS insisting on it by reverting that material back in. --Abd 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. - WAS 4.250 15:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep In my belief, any statements or documents produced and released by the Wikimedia Foundation on their website could potentially become themselves valuable learning resources on Wikiversity. In this case, the answer would be to improve the page, rather than just merely delete it, because regardless of the intentions of the original author of the page, the content has been changed significantly enough that it could be worth keeping. There's been far worse content to delete than this. Besides, the purpose of this page is at the very least disputable, but not enough to bring to RFD, and it is but one revert, which can quickly be solved by asking the original editor either on the talkpage of the resource in question or directly on his user talkpage what he wanted to prove with the page. Rather than ostensibly and hastily going to RFD on the first revert is, what could be done is to ask the author. And if he is being disruptive to the learning community, then it is the author himself who is at fault, not the page, and we don't want to throw away the baby with the bathwater. There are preventative measures that must first be undertaken, such as discussing any person with a conflict of interest to the related resource, a pov-pusher or revert warrior, etc. TeleComNasSprVen 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete per nominator.-Poetlister 16:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. JWSchmidt was blocked for activity including edits to the nominated page. --Abd 23:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy/Enforcement and self-reversion
We've established that this sort of practice is inappropriate and disruptive on Wikiversity. The only alternative I can see for this page is if it was moved to Bans instead... TeleComNasSprVen 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Why not merge the content with Bans than? -- dark lama  02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See The Political History of Banning —Albatross 10:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd figured that it'd take some time drawing up ideas for merging and so I'd thought I'd be able to gain more ground for some discussion here. Besides, even if it was moved to the new title, it'd still leave behind a redirect, and I don't want people to confuse blocks with bans. TeleComNasSprVen 18:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is traditional to equate whimsical indefinite or infinite blocks by a single rogue admin (enacted on a patently bogus pretext) to a permanent community ban. Copious examples available upon request.  —Gastrin Bombesin 09:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedy keep having such a page is a matter of Wikiversity policy and should be referred to an appropriate page, not discussed here.--Poetlister 13:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving it to userspace would make more sense than deletion (it's primarily from one contributor anyway), since the content itself isn't really a problem. --SB_Johnny talk 14:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose moving the current Privacy Policy page to KC's userspace, since it was mostly her idea to interpret it per her idiosyncratic Wikipedia/IDCab/MMPORG hubristic flights of fancy. —Gastrin Bombesin 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving it to userspace would make more sense than deletion (it's primarily from one contributor anyway), since the content itself isn't really a problem. -- WAS 4.250 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is a working page as a draft for proposed changes to WV:Blocking policy. See Wikiversity_talk:Blocking_policy for the discussion, showing some history. It was originally an edit to the proposed policy change, and was tendentiously opposed with little discussion (see subsequent edits). This is about blocking policy, and is so labelled. It is not about bans, which is a separate topic, and I'm not aware of any blocks that would currently be considered bans. Deletion would leave red link on the policy talk page.
 * Merging the content with the policy (WV:BLOCK was the original goal, after content had become consensus, though why we'd need consensus to edit a proposed policy is beyond me now, as it was then. Present mess is an example of what we get when we don't pay attention to policy pages. --74.106.90.195 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)

 * "I'm not aware of any blocks that would currently be considered bans." —Abd
 * Note that there are currently in effect any number of blocks of indefinite or infinite duration, and it is customary throughout WMF to routinely construe such infinite or indefinite blocks by rogue admins acting on their personal whimsy to be indistinguishable from an unappealable permanent community ban. —Moulton 20:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A block is a block regardless of the state of mind of the blocking admin. Moulton, here, confuses a homophone with an identity. A "defacto ban" that was not the basis of a ban process, i.e., a deliberated ban with a close or an ArbComm ban, is undoable by any admin at any time. It is really just a block, and the "ban" is considered to exist because, for some extended time, no admin has been willing to unblock. If an admin becomes willing, the admin may unblock. If, however, the community reality is that support for the ban is overwhelming, even if not documented, an admin, knowing this, may choose not to act, knowing that the action will be reversed. An admin undoing a true deliberated ban, however, can be sanctioned for it.
 * There is, on wikis, no such thing as an unappealable ban, but the possible avenues of appeal may narrow. Moulton has confused denial of appeal with lack of ability to appeal. He can obviously appeal, and has, for two years.
 * There are blocks that are current, but I specified my comment, that I was referring to to blocks that would currently be considered bans, i.e., that could not be undone by any custodian upon a personal finding that this was better for the wiki or community. Moulton is currently indef blocked, but his IP edits were tolerated for a time, until he abused that as well. Range blocks have now been set that appear to be effective. Those blocks will expire, I presume. If Moulton then edits IP and his edits are not disruptive, it is possible that the blocks will not be reset.
 * It is possible, at that time, that users will revert his edits, because he's blocked, and the edits are block evasion. If so, any user may revert them back in, taking responsibility for them. This is standard practice at Wikipedia, and it's obviously allowed here. (When I was reverting Moulton edits back in, there was some grumbling, but no actual warning or sanction.) If Moulton resists this process by revert warring to restore his own edits, the range blocks may then be placed.
 * Moulton did two things that required escalation of the blocks: he continued to use real names, contrary to common understanding of the policy, and he revert warred over his contributions while blocked. (As well as when he wasn't blocked.) If he avoids those two things, which are so simple to avoid that we have no doubt that Moulton's insistence upon them was willful defiance of community standards, he may gradually return to acceptance and unblock. He is not banned, he's blocked.
 * However, "blockhammer" just doesn't have the same ring as "banhammer." "Blockhead" works, though. --74.106.90.195 15:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)

 * I'm "evading a block." I consider the block itself to be a violation of WV:BLOCK, and clearly so, but the handling of blocks should not depend on whether or not they are "correct." Because I am blocked, any editor may revert my contributions, at this point, without regard to content. In fact, it's better if the revert is pure, as I was doing, mostly, with Moulton, i.e., the edit summary does not judge the content. If so, the revert may be undone by any other editor, on his or her own responsibility. If, however, the revert does judge the content as being in violation of policy or community welfare -- other than the status offense of block evasion --, the summary should so state, and reversion becomes a dispute, which should follow normal process, i.e., discussion, etc.
 * The proposed policy text, up for deletion here, makes all this, which is a simple consequence of wiki common law, explicit. If it is going to be claimed that the text is rejected, I will, now or later, ask for specifics, i.e., what part of it is rejected? The objection based on an alleged confusion between blocks and bans is obviously spurious, with no basis in practice or policy. --74.106.90.195 15:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)

Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies2
These pages have been asserted to contain little educational value because of their nature as attack pages, and therefore has been blanked but not removed from page history (diffs 1, 2, and 3). These blankings were committed by User:208.54.5.79. I've subsequently unblanked them to allow for wider discussion of the content here. TeleComNasSprVen 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep "Have been asserted" by whom? We do not ordinarily delete pages because they may contain some personal attacks, rather we redact them if needed. If a page is entirely personal attack, with no possible redeeming value, then deletion would be appropriate. However, this deletion request does not assert that, nor does the nominator assert anything about the page content itself. If, indeed, the removed material was "personal attack," then blanking would have been appropriate, so the unblanking is, again, mysterious, since deletion could be judged with the pages blanked, by looking at history. If anyone feels harmed by what is on a page, requesting page blanking is completely legitimate, but nobody has requested that, AFAIK. I suggest that TCNSV withdraw this nomination. --Abd 03:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed to talk I moved this to Talk because the nomination fails to assert any reason for deletion. Pages to be deleted should have a responsible nominator who asserts that the page should be deleted, giving reasons. --Abd 03:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: this page was previously moved by Abd to this page's talkpage and I've reversed the move afterwards. I've done this because a) it disrupts an ongoing process requiring community input by "hiding" the thread in the talkpage; b) it raises a legitimate concern about the attack material presented on the nominated pages, as explained in the edit summaries of the diffs pointed out; and c) there has already been a similar case in the deletion archives where the nominator of a deletion discussion has not provided a stance. TeleComNasSprVen 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as "not a request for deletion." It's a request that we "discuss the content," which is a particularly bad idea, given what has come down, in 2008, 2010, and recently. By reverting my changes (here, on the Talk page, and with the article notices), TCNSV caused the request to stay open long enough to attract additional comment, making it more of a problem to stop the process. This should have been discussed on Talk before bringing this back here, if it was going to come back. The main procedural objection was that TCNSV did not request deletion! He just placed the page here without any request (the request is normally implied by giving deletion reasons, presumably in good faith, believing the arguments presented to be true). These pages are about a highly controversial topic which has resulted in massive disruption on Wikiversity, and I don't see a value to belaboring this at this time, and much possible waste of time in useless argument. WAS 4.250 is correct, anything that is needed with respect to these files can be handled with ordinary editing, and if revision deletion is needed, it can be requested on WV:RCA. These files were already redacted, and I noticed only one recent edit that should probably be reviewed. This is not RfD business. --Abd 20:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why must we stop process when it is central to generating the consensus and discussion a page of such importance deserves? If it were not for process, we could willy-nilly on the wiki without fear of blocks or other preventative actions, and call it within scope. If you truly thought the deletion request was inappropriate, bring it up on another board such as WV:RCA, but do not just merely remove my comments from this page wholesale, which is disruptive to the deletion process and/or discussion. The mere existence of the page as something within the scope of Wikiversity is called into question by the blanking action, which therefore implies a request for the removal of the page from the wiki. So therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss the IP's actions here and whether or not they were appropriate in asking for deletion. As to revision deletion, normal deletion process can be obtained whereby all the revisions for a particular page are deleted in whole, which is the purpose of what the discussion is attempting to ascertain is appropriate here. TeleComNasSprVen 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One of these pages was previously nominated for deletion. The discussion there should be referenced, it's on Requests for Deletion/Archives/5. --Abd 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - People are still discussing those events. But nothing is lost if "claimed Real Name from claimed Real Location" is modified to "name-redacted from location-redacted" or whatever. - WAS 4.250 19:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with WAS here. Clean it up and perhaps semi-protect it. --SB_Johnny talk 22:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Expand to include cases about Wikimedians who come to Wikiversity and disrupt this community by calling learning resources "attack pages". --JWSchmidt 03:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could use more people who come here to teach in such innovative ways. "The breadth of industries they cover creates a compelling argument to not only allow for but to encourage disruption in public education." - http://www.amazon.com/Disrupting-Class-Disruptive-Innovation-Change/dp/0071592067 - -  WAS 4.250 15:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Privacy
I tried to find something, anything, that could even be remotely educational or salvageable from this page and its history. Unfortunately I could not. The title seems very ambiguous, these look at best like spam links, and whatever supposedly helpful and/or educationally beneficial site they were previously pointing to is now giving me 404s, and when trying to contact the website directly at http://www2.norwich.edu I receive a 403 forbidden error message instead. TeleComNasSprVen 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The page author made a number of other medical topic pages with similar issues (using 3 IPs), looks like they were syllabuses for classes he was teaching. It would probably make more sense to address them as a batch. BTW... --SB_Johnny talk 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I've done a little bit more research on this JohnOrlando character and it seems they have created multiple other pages consisting merely of the same somewhat "spammy" links pointed out in the page above. These in particular can be found at Special:Contributions/67.189.198.188 and Special:Contributions/JohnOrlando. I'll list them here for review. TeleComNasSprVen 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything "spammy", it looks like he was posting syllabuses. See WV:AGF. --SB_Johnny talk 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I actually meant to say it in a different way, something conveying the meaning of a page containing "full-of-links". Sorry, TeleComNasSprVen 00:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that most of these seem quite out of scope for something like Wikiversity. If it can be improved in any way, such as subpaging them under a single resource entitled "Norwich University resources/" or the like, and the links cleaned up and removed and whatever content left in the hyperlinks moved onto the wiki for greater coherence, it would possibly make them eligible for keeping them hosted here. TeleComNasSprVen 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, collecting them together and/or userifying would probably be a good solution. --SB_Johnny talk 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone tried contacting Dr. Orlando? Geoff 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita
This article appears to be too tendentious to be a valid learning resource. It says "The purpose of this work is to show that the message of Bhagavad-gita – the sacred scripture of Hinduism – is inherently satanic, and that Bhagavad-gita is "Hindu terrorism"". An article that neutrally assesses the hypothesis that one of the greatest works of world religion could be satanic and terrorism could be useful, but not one that assumes the truth of this proposition before it starts.--Poetlister 17:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Per Nominator, not a learning resource, simply a soapbox to spout anti-Hindu propaganda. No attempts at all are made to support the points of view by means of references, analysis, or any method that could remotely be considered scholarly. My estimation is that it simply provides quotes of verses that sound violent out of context and claims that the text is satanic and evil. Thenub314 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: If you see the body of the (main/original) article, the article clearly does not seem to assume the hypothesis; it is merely the opening of the article’s abstract – which, as mentioned in the Wikiversity article, is an excerpt from the main/original article – that mentions what the article ultimately seems to deliver – the grounds for the hypothesis. And considering the quality of the grounds discussed in the (main/original) article, I believe it can be a valuable learning resource. 61.2.56.112 19:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot follow this reply. We are discussing the article on Wikiversity, not an article published somewhere else.  Anyway, we need to see the full article to understand the reply; the link only gives essentially the same text as the WV article (so there could be a copyvio issue).--Poetlister 18:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the link gives essentially the same text as the WV article. (The main text seems much bigger and has 26 endnotes.) And, again, as mentioned in the WV article, the text (the main/original article) seems to be released under Creative Commons license: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (See the end of the introduction on that page). I think what the WV article needs is improvement, not deletion. 61.2.57.51 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved I have created page context for this discussion of Joshi's work, and have moved the page to Bhagavad Gita/The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita. This is not an opinion for Keep or Delete. I have also removed material that was not presented in accordance with a neutral presentation; if page material is not neutral, opinions expressed should be attributed (quotes from Joshi are attributed). Because this is, by nature, controversial, I'd recommend the interested IP editor register an account. Pages with high levels of controversy require maintenance, and having a responsible editor can make a difference. --Abd 16:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Kedar Joshi on India and other pages linked from there. Basic issue for Wikiversity, here, as with the nominated page, is context. Kedar Joshi is probably not a proper subject of study here -- or should I start a page on Abd ul-Rahman Lomax? after all, I'm well-known in many circles -- but Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita, and India are. Wikiversity does not require notability for what can amount to student or scholar subpages, original research is allowed, etc. The issue will be how a resource is placed, the context, I suggest. This is not a !vote for keep/delete. --Abd 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RogDel has agreed to take responsibility for this page. While RogDel just registered here, he's a long-time editor at Wikipedia, with over 61,000 edits there. --Abd 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Hope my recent edit to the page is good. ~ RogDel 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RogDel, could you also look at the other related articles, Kedar Joshi on India, etc. and consider how these might be presented in an educational context? India? Philosophy? What? --Abd 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC) original comment split by sig below, dup sig added --Abd 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Kedar Joshi on India and Should India be invaded by the West? should be moved to India, under something like Critical analysis or perspectives, just the way The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita was moved to Bhagavad Gita, to create context. Kedar Joshi Quotes Related to England & Great Britain could similarly be moved to United Kingdom or Great Britain. (Philosophy, with Politics, Quotes, and the other ones, may just remain as a category) Maybe Abd you can do that? And then individual quotes could be discussed on a page (should I say ideally by experts on the subjects) or even the entire perspective could possibly be summed up, studied, discussed and presented in an educational manner to enhance its educational value. Hope this makes sense. ~ RogDel 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be short of time, but I'll look at it when I can. Meanwhile, feel free to help with the organization! --Abd 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Poetlister, would you mind looking at what RogDel has done (and how I moved the page myself)? Does this make the page more acceptable? Discussion of ideas can be highly educational, if it's done in the right context. Wikiversity tends to handle controversy by balancing, not by exclusion. --Abd 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this all looks a great deal healthier. Thanks to both of you.--Poetlister 19:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Clinical Practice
Both the resource and the portal are unmaintained, and contain little content that couldn't be duplicated on another wiki. TeleComNasSprVen 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second nomination. Prior nomination was closed due to lapse of time with no response. --Abd 21:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I would rather error on the side of inclusion than deletion. This material could be improved eventually. The philosophy behind a wiki is that it doesn't have to be perfect when you make something. Devourer09  ( t · c ) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Rafael M. Pedrajo
Raw Google translation of biography from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_M._Pedrajo,. Speedy deletion tags removed by IP author without comment. I attempted explanation at Talk:Rafael M. Pedrajo, and have notified IP editor at User talk:189.140.24.110. Not an educational resource, but an encyclopedia article. --Abd 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to English Wikipedia It would be more appropriate there; AGF, maybe putting it here was a mistake.--Poetlister 17:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Poetlister. It's gone beyond "mistake." See Request custodian action. This is not about bad faith, which is irrelevant to deletion anyway. The same article was posted on Commons as well, twice. See . The user was told, there, that Wikipedia was more appropriate, and ignored the advice there as well as here.
 * In addition, the article, without sourcing, is copyvio, and the IP editor has repeatedly, now, removed a link to the original article, that was translated by Google, to create this page. Without that credit, it's copyvio.
 * I'm not about to copy or transwiki a poor translation of an es.wikipedia page to Wikipedia. My account there doesn't need the flak. But, hey, if someone else wants to do it, fine with me. Just make sure the source is credited! --Abd 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed as delete. --Draicone (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no obvious educational value; appears to be bio-wiki-spam. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. I have suggested to the user, in Google-Spanish, that an account be created, and it's possible to work on a translation of this biography here, in user space. If there is a user space to use, the page could be moved there, and I offered to help with translation; that is, I'd clean up the English, format it for Wikipedia, make sure that it meets WP standards, and the user could approve that the translation is good, clarifying the Spanish, and it could then be transwiki'd or copied, with appropriate source credit. (I think the user's lack of cooperation may simply be lack of facility in English.) --Abd 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. The content being merely a google translation from the Spanish of the original es.wiki article, the content can be easily created by anyone, if it is ever needed. If the user responds and registers an account, the page can be userfied. --Abd 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose close as delete. The IP user blanked the suggestion in Spanish in the IP's talk page, blanked this entire RfD Page, blanked resource Talk page discussion, and edited the article, removing some of the copied text, trying to do some original editing in poor English, I think, (we wouldn't delete for that reason, nor for the user talk blanking), but leaving chunks of pure Google translation, and removing the reference to es.wikipedia. I think it's a lost cause. --Abd 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No educational value and belongs on the Egnlish WP anyways as it was copied from the Spanish WP in the first place. Devourer09  ( t · c ) 02:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Blocked user
This template does nothing but add possible humiliation to a user who is blocked. It was recently substituted for a more gentle information template at User:Wikademia and User talk:Wikademia, and the user placing it suggested I RfD the template, if I had a problem with it. I thought about it for weeks. I have a problem with it. It emphasizes a block as a Big Deal, with the Big Red X. We should emphasize that blocks are sometimes necessary, pending resolution of a dispute. There should be no more fuss than when a meeting chair asks a member to sit down, they are out of order, or a sergeant-at-arms conducts a member from a meeting because the member gets hot. Unless something very serious has happened, nobody gets expelled from the organization over this.

The template is only in use on User:Okanosato and User talk:74.142.175.97, where it displays an incorrect block period, 2 hours later became 6 months.... A blocked notice to the user is adequate. --Abd 02:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be enough to deprecate this template so that it is not used, but leave it undeleted, so that prior usage can be seen as it appeared. I'll do that if there is no objection and then withdraw this RfD. --Abd 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep It may be used at future points. I generally like the use of such templates at other wikis where I edit, as if I visit their user page it lets me know immediately there is something going on. (PS I also would not like to see it necessarily deprecated.) Thenub314 19:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Icns141/Section 2, Term 3, 2011
The content on this page was obviously meant to be placed on a user page and doesn't belong in the mainspace. I don't want to speedy delete it if it's possible to move the content to the correct user page, but I'm not sure which user page it should be moved to. Devourer09 ( t · c ) 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 * There was only one editor to edit the page so I moved it their user space (See User:Tata3000). Thenub314 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was an error on the part of the user. I did figure out what was going on: ICNS141. Uploading a photo and creating a user page were a class assignment, and see Icns141/Homework. Thanks for helping, Thenub. However, Devourer, this wasn't on top in "mainspace," it was under the class page. If the instructor wants that, it wouldn't be unreasonable. But that wasn't the assignment, so we fixed the student's homework.... :-) There is going to be some attention needed to permissions on the photos. I guess that will be part of the class! --Abd 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Žarko Petan
This article - another in Slovenian - should be on the Slovenian wikiversity. --Gaidheal1 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the user blanked it. --Bencmq 06:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Padmakar Khedekar
I wasn't sure if this was a candidate for speedy deletion or not. The entire content of the article is "is the former Director General of Health Services of Maharashtra, a state in India", which doesn't seem a very useful basis for a WV project.--Poetlister 20:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that in a case like this, you should tag it for speedy deletion. We don't really need to discuss something like this unless a user positively asks for it. For efficiency, I'll close this request and place the speedy tag instead. If anyone disagrees, of course, they may revert my changes, both this and the page edit, and argue for Keep or other outcome here. --Abd 20:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

✅, actual deletion. --Abd 22:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity the Movie/Wikiversity is a Mighty Fine Ditch
Seems to exist to mock, disparage, and put down Wikiversity (and Wikipedia) contributors. I do not see how this can be salvaged as anything but an attack page. No educational value that I can see; unethical; harmful. KillerChihuahua 21:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. This (and many similar pieces of material) is a piece of Wikiversity history. Deleting it reduces access to the study of Wikiversity history, it reduces transparency. It also inhibits the study of Wikipedia history. Anyone may courtesy-blank the page so it won't show in searches, preferably explaining the blanking and leaving a link to the unblanked version, but I do expect we will compile an index to such pages for future analysis. The page, in fact, says as much or more about those who created it than it does about Wikipedia. It is not neutral, but it is not a top-level page (where neutrality is important). When referenced, it should be clear that the page is the opinion or work of the contributors. Context is almost everything. With "outing" avoided, with offensive material buried in history, this is not harmful. In the study of history, we sometimes study the documentation of unethical behavior. It is not unethical to do so, if the study is conducted in an ethical manner. Certainly much harmful material is even left open on Wikipedia, editors have been accused of this and that, and it is considered part of the process. The problem with much of the "Wikimedia Ethics" work was that we did not develop or follow ethical guidelines in the study itself, so disruption was predictable. We did begin to do this with Response testing/WMF Projects. KC, I hope you will participate in this, not so much as an active student/scholar, but rather as a witness who may testify as to her experience. (Not as a "defendant," hauled before the court of public opinion by an angry plaintiff, though that did happen to some of us. Wikiversity is not a court, it is an educational institution and, as part of that, a research organization.) --Abd 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with KC on this. I also don't think it's particularly useful as a historical document, but perhaps it could be put in userspace if somebody is seeing something I'm not. Tolerating this sort of thing over the years was done with the best of intentions, but I think it hasn't yielded any of the hoped-for results (and has had plenty of negatives). --SB_Johnny talk 14:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Mock it = Seems to exist to provoke self-mocking, disparagement of officiousness, and to put down contributors with no sense of humor. I do not see how this can be salvaged as anything but an example of something to be mocked. Anyone with no sense of humor will only see something with no educational value, something unethical, and something harmful. Educational value exists in such persons mocking this page rather than deleting it. (Seriously: I first ran into trouble with FeloniousMonk when I made a joke to try to diffuse tension between him and Sam Spade. ... Sam Spade was an amusing trip of a whole different sort.) - WAS 4.250 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Wikipedia voted to keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sam_Spade/Detective_agency and see where that lead! Clearly, we need to be more deletionist than Wikipedia. - WAS 4.250 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Here's another observation. 4.250.27.74 has made a grand total of 5 edits to Wikipedia, and 2 of them are on this issue. I'm forced to wonder whether s/he is part of Sam's Army, posting anonymously to avoid being identified. Getting involved in this type of debate, and showing such easy familiarity with Wikipedia is suspicious for a brand new (started in April) user. I can see (and this user's post demonstrates clearly) the vast potential for abuse inherent in Sam's organization. ...(Exploding Boy 20:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC))" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Spade/Detective_agency clearly indicates you have something to hide. And what's this about "amusing"?? Clearly, you are a troll. - 4.248.71.160 15:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this isn't a lyrics database. TeleComNasSprVen 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikiversity the Movie/Wikiversity is a Mighty Fine Ditch" is not a lyrics database. Or are you saying that only communication in prose is allowed?? Diagrams? pictures? analogies? alliteration? rhyme? Where do you draw the line? Communication takes many forms, n'est pas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MagrittePipe.jpg - WAS 4.250 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Expand. This music project was originally about Wikipedia editors who have been kicked out of Wikipedia by abusive administrators. It needs to be updated to include songs about Wikiversity community members who have been blocked and banned by abusive administrators. These topics are an important part of the History of WMF wiki projects and relevant to the recent call for Openness by the the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. --JWSchmidt 02:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JMS, teaching our gentle readers about unproductive interaction on a web site is certainly a noble endeavour; but you may wish to consider if emotive language, taunts, insults, and boring repetition of same-old-same-old (e.g. "abusive administrators") represents your best efforts to teach, communicate, and influence. For example, how about contributing learning resources about the effects of refering to specific individuals as "abusive" ad nauseum? abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive abusive ... Was that educational, or just boring? WAS 4.250 14:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We should do an undelete request for the censorship page then use that page to make a list of the "approved" terminology within Wikimedia wiki projects. Rather than use "emotive language" like "abusive" to describe sysops who abuse their positions of trust and responsibility, we can provide lists of the "approved" language such as, "the sysops collaborated in secret, off-wiki to violate Wikiversity policy", "the sysop violated the WMF privacy policy by making public the IP address of the wiki editor", "the sysop falsified the block log", etc. "taunts, insults" <-- Please list the "taunts" and "insults" that you are concerned about. --JWSchmidt 14:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't feel entirely comfortable deleting this, given this approaches censorship territory (though fortunately at quite a distance). However, this page in particular doesn't add any clear value, and I don't intend to start undermining consensus. Perhaps JWS would like to pursue the topic in his userspace; the content has been preserved in a diff in case it's of interest. --Draicone (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly of no educational value, and purely an attempt to make a point irrelevant to Wikiversity.--Poetlister 16:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Poetlister and SBJ, not really much to add, but I am not generally fond of this sort of mocking. Thenub314 01:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Hope no-one minds if I weigh in here... Were the lyrics written well, and scanned well, and made amusing and sly remarks utilising clever prose, I would say keep it, but it isn't. On the matter of it being a 'piece of Wikiversity history', I say poppycock! These lyrics are the work of one annoyed editor with a grudge, who wishes to vent his spleen by writing silly song lyrics. If he is desperate to keep them, he should stick 'em in his userspace, but this doesn't belong anywhere else. As a further note, historically relevant material - that which is worth keeping for future 'study' - would consist of information along the lines of 'we disagreed over this sort of thing before: how did we resolve it then, and do we still agree with our decisions?' OR 'that particular student mentioned how easy/difficult he found it to navigate around his course/Wikiversity in general; how can we improve (more) on this?'. --Gaidheal1 07:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inarticulate and irrelevant.  –SJ + > 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits
Delete The following page seems to be outside the scope of wikiversity. I understand it is a bit unusual to nominate deletion of another users userspace page, but the main addition seems to be keeping track of various disruptive edits at a sister project wikipedia. I should note that to me it seems this page is not attempting to be a collaborative learning resource. Indeed it begins with a statement that the page should only be edited by Abd. Anyways, this sort activity seems outside our scope, which I understand is sometimes a rather nebulous concept. Thenub314 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator has not attempted to discuss this user page on the attached talk page, as invited, but instead edited the user page itself. I will remove the RfD tag (that's normally allowed), replacing it on the attached talk page. This page might later be moved into Wikiversity space; until then it's my study and that should be respected. But errors may be corrected.
 * Self-Reversion has been proposed and used on Wikiversity, by Thekohser as is documented on this page. This page is a study of the use of Self-Reversion, and the response of the community, wherever used. The edits shown are not "disruptive," except that "self-reversion under ban" is always a technical block or ban violation, in the absence of a self-reversion exception, which is under consideration here, see Blocking policy/Enforcement and self-reversion. What is being undertaken is a study of what happens when a user who is banned or blocked uses self-reversion as an alternative to allow positive contributions. As designed, all the contributions are positive, none are, in themselves, disruptive, to my knowledge. If that's not true, then this is what the study will show.
 * The study of wiki operation has been considered to be within scope; but prior efforts were mixed with attack on other editors. This study attempts to avoid that completely, what is being studied here is the contributions of users who used self-reversion, and what the community did with these edits. Since many editors believe that all edits under ban are disruptive, intrinsically, it is no condemnation of any editor that they treat these edits as disruptive. But are they? Hence this study.
 * (RfD is not the place to debate self-reversion itself, that discussion will take place when the proposed policy is asserted.)
 * If any material on this page is a violation of any Wikiversity policy, it should be removed. Please discuss on the talk page, if possible. --Abd 21:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have replaced the deletion notice on the page itself instead of the talk page. I am not trying to be difficult, but my thinking was that because the page linked on WP, the people arriving here after following the link might miss out on taking part in this conversation if the notice was contained only on the talk page.  The interplay between admins trying to stop/block the actions there and the listing of them here makes this case slightly unusual.  To my mind the page reads like date of an active experiment of people on WP which they haven't agreed to be part of, but maybe I should have slowed down and asked what it was about.  I have done so now. Thenub314 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, big deal. Damn straight it's unusual, this has never been tried before on this scale at Wikipedia. That page is listed on WP? Where? I think every link has been deleted, one has been revision-deleted. Do we we want to have WP admins, probably the only ones who will see this, come here and tell us what we can do? Uh, hasn't this happened before? How did that work out? In any case, I don't mind comments, I even solicited them, but this is the only WMF wiki where something like this might be appropriate in mainspace, not to mention user space. But if they could make the case that this page is harming Wikipedia, that's relevant. However, that would be the tail wagging the dog. What's happening on Wikipedia does not depend in any way on this page, but links to the page were offered as a courtesy -- and deleted -- so that anyone could watch and quickly find the "socking," if they want to. I started the documentation on my user Talk page there, which would have been superior (this is what was done here with Thekohser) but, as a result, Talk page access there was quickly cut off. If WV decides that this page can't be kept, then it will simply go somewhere else. Here, though, anyone could complain on the Talk page if there is something on the page that is a problem. So far, no claims of problems, the only complaint or comment, even, has been from ... Thenub314. --Abd 00:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep The editor making these entries is apparently doing so to record data for use in a later study, as stated in at least one other offsite resource. →StaniStani  23:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd has never carried any such project anywhere? And his userspace in enwiki was full of projects started with lots of promises and then abandoned to rot? This looks like an excuse designed to keep the page, and then leave it indefinitely abandoned in his userspace as a part of his personal crusade against other wiki. --Enric Naval 21:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep This page is a collection of data that is investigating the openess of the WP system. Devourer09  ( t · c ) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is a reason why the userspace exists. It he wants to do stuff on there, why not? (Plus, it's kinda interesting) Ajraddatz 04:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ajraddatz. If anything on the page violates Wikiversity policy, the offending material should be removed. --Abd 15:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither is there any intention to subvert Foundation policy or to attack Wikipedia or Wikipedia users or administrators. While my actions on Wikipedia involve block evasion, sometimes people forget w:WP:IAR, an over-riding policy, and none of the edits damage the project, except as administrator response damages the project, which I cannot control. (w:WP:RBI is standard, and does no harm, I've been involved in enforcing RBI, it is response beyond RBI which causes damage, such as range blocking and revision deletion when they are not needed to prevent actual harm.)
 * A certain prior project here was alleged to be coordinating or encouraging "response testing," considered by some to be harmful, but the pages in question are only documenting an independent effort, for a narrow purpose, showing various usages of self-reversion, and, then, the realistic alternative, followed by many editors when blocked, pure un-self-reverted block/ban evasion. The responses of the Wikipedia community are being shown, neutrally, I hope. Occasionally a response, on the face, is outside of Wikipedia policy, but that's just what happened. Administrators and editors are not expected to be perfect, and it's not the task of this page to judge or blame, but only to show the history, for later analysis, requiring the establishment of standards of ethics for such study. (Because the history involves many IP edits, and includes revision-deleted edits, only through a coverage page like this can it even be seen.) Coverage of this study on Wikipedia Review has already led to the review of Revision Deletion policy on Wikipedia, a benefit. --Abd 15:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment: This may be allowed by current Wikiversity policy, but repeatedly violating the policies of another project is in poor taste. Documenting it seems simply like a call for attention.  There are valid studies one could organize which require doing things in poor taste (though this is being done randomly and is unlikely to ever be useful for one); but there are millions more which do not.   Abd, I suspect you have many better things to do with your time - including better ways to improve Wikiversity - than continuing in this fashion. –SJ + > 20:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No accounting for taste. Thanks for noting that it's allowed by policy. Deletion reasons may also assert harm, aside from policy, but no harm has been alleged here, other than to me, from allegedly wasting my own time. That concern for the slaves in the salt mine is typically Wikipedian. Stop playing with w:WP:Esperanza, it's a waste of time! Go back to work! (The real reason for shutting down Esperanza? My guess: it could have created an independent power center, able to move outside the restrictions of the box maintained by the core cabal. It wasn't yet doing that, it wasn't even trying, but the core knows, instinctively, the danger to its power, and acts, firmly and effectively. They have the power to prevail for a time.)
 * Just saying. This is not something for us to decide here. We decide about Wikiversity, but when Wikipedians come here to attack WV users and WV user projects, as Sj has in recent days, here and on meta, I will speak up. --Abd 22:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Close as keep. I appreciate Thenub's logic, and this is a proper case for discussion, but as consensus shows this page seems appropriately within the bounds of userspace. --Draicone (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Doesn't further the mission of producing open educational materials. Tom Morris 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom isn't completely new here, but has a charming opinion of Wikiversity. The narrow view of "open educational materials" that would exclude source materials, collected evidence, in advance of analysis and study, is typically Wikipedian. This page is in user space, and tradition here is to allow such materials if they are not, in themselves, contrary to policy. Such as Tom's user page. --Abd 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shantaram
This page contains very little of use. Beyond its creation, no new content (that has not been reverted) has been added. --Gaidheal1 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oddly, the edit that might have started to make this into an educational resource was reverted. It occurs to me we could have a resource where participants read and discuss books, including fiction. Books? Yes, Johnny, those things printed on paper, they still do that, right? --Abd 01:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not very much use at the moment. An informed debate about how good the book is would certainly be educational.--Poetlister 13:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If we have a book club learning project then this could be part of it, and the page used to discuss the book, but it doesn't seem to be that, so for right now I'd suggest deleting the page but putting the book on a list of recommended reading or a queue for the book club. Devourer09  ( t · c ) 00:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete –SJ + > 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --Draicone (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ervin fritz
This should go on another language of WV. Not entirely sure if it's educational either, but if it is then I think it should be moved. Devourer09 ( t · c ) 15:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Move It seems to be in Slovenian. Also, the title should have a capital F.--Poetlister 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If someone can find it a new home, I'll close this RfD and speedy the article once it's been moved. --Draicone (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to the user's space, redirect suppressed. User notified, beta.wikiversity suggested. No need for transwiki for a single author page. Fixed capitalization and closed. --Abd 14:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created a category, Category:Non-English pages for review to allow delayed deletion while giving a user or others time to recover and move the file to the appropriate wiki, or otherwise to maintain it for personal use. I placed this page and another in this category. Users tagging pages for deletion that are not in English may add this category if they wish. Users may also userfy such pages on sight, adding the category and adding a speedy deletion tag to the redirect if it is in mainspace. Please notify the user, see this notice for an example, or we may create a template for this. --Abd 14:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A Translation of the Bible
''previous RfD: Requests for Deletion/Archives/10. The last proposal was closed as 'no consensus', reproposing deletion for a clearer reason.''

A set of pages duplicating a much better community translation effort at wikisource, which is designed for such work. Learning from such translation or discussion of the process and what it teaches is appropriate here, as is an Introduction to Bible Translation and A translation bibliography for Bible students. But the translation itself belongs on WB. –SJ + > 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator, and Merge any new material to Wikisource. –SJ + >
 * Keep. If this is a duplication of the Wikisource work, how could it be that the Wikisource version is "much better"? The Wikisource translation is the work of Wikisource editors, and it is a single work at any point, it is not designed for multiple translations. The present Wikiversity page is the work of one author/editor/student, at this point, though others are invited. "Better" is a personal opinion, irrelevant to us. I did, however, look at one page and disagree with the quality assessment on what was there. The author and others will learn from the process. If anyone considers material not neutral, if there are conflicts over the content, we will presumably fork it, with overall neutral presentation. The most that might be done here, absent copyvio, would be to userfy this as a personal project. There has, however, been no such conflict. --Abd 18:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question; only the author can answer that. I do not know why the author chooses to run an inferior project which is also a duplicate.  However, it clearly duplicates the work on Wikisource, with no particular differentiating feature; it is a solo work without collaborators; and the resulting translation is both scant and poor in comparison.  (Nor does it help any passing readers discover the better project that exists.)   –SJ + > 11:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. . --Abd 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. As I'd thought when I investigated Wikisource for hosting original work, the use of Wikisource for original translations is not clearly within the Wikisource scope, see very recent discussion there, which suggests using Wikibooks or Wikiversity! --Abd 13:25, 8 July 2011
 * Response that is not the position of English Wikisource, please see What_Wikisource_includes. We did indeed have a discussion (Scriptorium) about where was the most appropriate WMF site for translations and it was the general upshot that of the WMF wikis that Wikisource was best situated for the task of hosting public sourced translations. Billinghurst 19:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep I refer people to the previous discussion. Could Sj please explain how you can discuss techniques of Bible translation without providing examples?  Also, why is he not complaining about the many articles here or on Wikibooks that duplicate articles on Wikipedia?  I note that he says "The translation itself belongs on Wikibooks, where such a project exists and is much farther along" and, above, he says "But the translation itself belongs on WB".  I had previously proposed moving it to Wikibooks, but was advised that this would be inappropriate.  Finally, can he please explain why the translation on WS is "much better" than this one?--Poetlister 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that a translation of an original document that attempts to be as faithful to the original as possible should be hosted at Wikisource. Wikisource is for source texts.  Wikibooks often hosts annotations or even commentaries, such as Biblical Studies, but there's a gray line that shouldn't be crossed into the boundary of original research, which is permitted at Wikiversity but not allowed at Wikibooks. Adrignola 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No translation can be "faithful to the original." That's the problem with translations, I've dealt extensively with this problem with the Qur'an. The original language has a range of meanings. Sometimes one can find English words that have the same range of meanings as the original, but that is not the norm, usually the ranges differ. So to translate, one must pick what one thinks is the "intended meaning" from a range of possibilities. And this is normally "faithful," not to the original, which is ambiguous, but to received interpretations or dogma. With the Qur'an, we have explicit strong tradition from the Prophet that there are "seven" levels of meaning, that alternate interpretations can all be right, perhaps speaking to different situations or individuals. (And there is an example of interpretation right there: "seven" is apparently a common Arabic expression for "many." So what did he mean? Seven or many? Believe it or not, there are "seven" traditional "readings" of the Qur'an, with minor variations in wording or pronunciation, and this tradition has been cited in conjunction with that, but the classification into "seven" is rather artificial.)

 * Apparently Adrignola is correct about Wikisource scope, as far as I can tell. But any translation by an individual is, by definition, original research or synthesis, and the Wikisource translations are generally the work of individuals, and synthesis by local committee is still synthesis. I prefer to think of Wikibooks as hosting "books," representing common opinion or knowledge in a field, in a manner similar to Wikipedia, with a little more scope for synthesis, but not much more.

 * I have done Qur'anic translations that are "as faithful to the original as possible." They do not reduce the meaning to a single set of sentences, they are rather extensive glosses on the text, giving the range of meanings for words, together with traditions regarding the meaning as intepreted in other sources, etc. They are massive, and I've only done this for a few verses. It could be done here at Wikiversity. Great idea, in fact. But a huge project. --Abd 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Move (potentially Merge) to Wikibooks or Wikisource - where the articles will receive more attention and avoid having to reinvent the wheel. --Draicone (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not "articles," they are exercises in translation, part of Introduction to Bible Translation. --Abd 18:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

While a merge to Wikisource of these exercises is theoretically possible, this would not gain more attention. Wikisource generally deprecates original research, but it looks like some Wikisource editors wanted to work on a collaborative translation. Working on translation of source texts like this is a valuable exercise, it's how I taught myself to read Qur'anic Arabic, this is an educational activity. Some who have not done the work or who are fundamentalists may think that translation is merely moving some idea of fixed meaning from one language to another. It's far more complex, and fraught with difficulties, as anyone who does this work with an open mind soon discovers. (People who think that a text is the "Word of God," often then collapse this into an idea that it has only one meaning, the "correct" one, and that, since it is the World of God, this must be clear and only the deluded can't see it. We have this problem in Islam as well, folks. I remember an imam who shouted "No!" when a Quranic verse with obvious meaning was recited to him -- in Arabic! -- because he did not like the implications. They may think of themselves as "fundamentalist," but what they actually believe are much later ideas that became dogma in certain areas. Wikisource does allow translations, but this is problematic because of the original research that may be involved in translation. See Original contributions policy on Wikisource. See, then, policy on translations, which then refers to proposed policy on translations. This proposed policy does allow parallel translations, but there is opinion on Wikisource that this policy is deprecated. The focus on Wikisource, however, would be the product, a translation or set of translations. The work here is presently entirely that of a single person, Poetlister. So if this were to be moved to Wikisource, it would have to be shown as Translation of the Bible (Poetlister). But it isn't complete, nor would it be completed there! Considering this as an educational project, it belongs on Wikiversity. If at some point it is ready for a move to Wikibooks, that could be done with the agreement of Wikibooks. It is not ready for that. --Abd 18:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment Wikisource translations only use the name of the author where it is a fully published work. For any public-derived translation where there is the need to disambiguate, the nomenclature is to wrap the name as (Wikisource). If no need to disambiguate there is no need to append. While one person may do the translation (as the public), they are all labelled as contributed by Wikisource, they are not individually aligned, and would attribution would only take place through the page history or the talk page. Billinghurst 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point here is that the "Wikisource" translation is a collaborative effort by multiple editors, original research there, producing, through Wikisource process, a single result, whereas the Wikiversity resource is at this point the work of a single author, Poetlister, his own original research, and that will, here, be respected. I.e., we will allow such individual work as long as it does not create conflict, and Poetlister may decide to welcome or not welcome alteration. If there is conflict, we will set up forks as needed, we do not insist on a single result any more than a professor would insist on a single paper from all the students. This kind of flexibility, here, is why Wikiversity so rarely sees revert warring on resources. We have other ways of handling disagreements over neutrality. --Abd 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment Wikisource some time ago had a debate whether translation belong there or at Wikibooks and at some point Wikibooks was invited to discuss it as well. Besides what Adrignola stated, I think there is the issue that books at Wikibooks are intended to be continuously improved on and updated indefinitely as what is known changes. A translation of the bible though, would be a static and finished work, unless people began to creatively add to or revise the bible, which would make it a new work and original research. I think translations of the bible that are controversial, used to teach learners new ideas, or used as part of some research project about a religion would be appropriate at Wikiversity. -- dark lama  17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks, Darklama. Translations of religious source texts are almost inherently controversial. Translations are products of their times and of the people doing the translations, and what those people believe. In translating a work like the Bible, particularly from Hebrew, words have a vast range of meanings, often, and one must select them. What's the guide for selection? It's really very personal, unless one is following some dogma as to the meaning. What I've found useful were interlinear study texts that both present the original language, that facilitate reading in the original language, and that give relatively literal translations (even when that doesn't make much sense), plus provide "interpretation" that gives the range of ways that a text has been translated. It can rapidly become a huge work. But a very valuable one, and one can use interlinear translations to learn the source language. I have sources for this, both for the Bible and for the Qur'an, and hope to eventually help with this project. If it's here. --Abd 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two different types of projects - translations themselves, and learning about translation. The latter, referencing source material on Wikisource, is surely appropriate for Wikiversity.  –SJ + > 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there three different types of projects - translations themselves, learning about the translation process, and active engagement in doing translations. I agree the finished translations themselves probably belong at Wikisource. I think the translation process might involve language and linguistic theory which depending on format/approach could be appropriate for Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity. I think active engaging is outside the scope of Wikipedia and Wikibooks because those projects are about documenting what has already be done by established sources. I think active engaging is appropriate at Wikiversity where people can be encouraged to document their personal progress and share what they have personally learned from the experience along the way. -- dark lama  14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: now that we have global login, can't we just seamlessly integrate pages on enwv and wikisource as needed? In any case, I'm not sure RfD is the best venue for this discussion, given its inherently negative theme. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the talk page and linked to from the relevant wikisource pages. --Draicone (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note relevant opinion given elsewhere. . Sj went to Talk pages of all the editors who had commented in the prior RfD, which is rather unusual, but perhaps acceptable, if noted in the RfD. This included the Talk page of the editor who had filed the previous RfD, who opined, in response, When Poetlister first began working here on Wikiversity, a RfD was appropriate as it would have effectively put a halt to the core problem, which was avoiding the Wikisource community. Now it isn't, as Poetlister is now using Wikiversity within scope, e.g. Discussion of the Wikisource Translation of the Bible. A local ban discussion is the appropriate way forward. This both shows opinion that this resource is in scope, and brings up what may have been the real objective here, from the start. --Abd 01:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed close as Keep. This has sat with no additional opinion for Delete and shows consensus for Keep, the only clear Delete comment was from the nominator, and that suggestion would require difficult merge decisions on another project. Were I not involved, I'd simply close this as Keep, already. Absent objection, I intend to do that. From the proposed deletion policy:
 * Requests should usually conclude after a month of discussion. Discussions may conclude sooner if discussion stalls for more than a week. If a consensus cannot be established within a month the page should be kept. You may use the discuss page for the page in question to continue to address any concerns that requires more time. Anyone acting in good faith may archive and summarize a discussion that has stalled for more than a week or discussion that has continued for more than a month.
 * --Abd 12:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:S_Larctia
Delete As a matter of basic respect, if a user requests a page in their own user space be deleted there is no reason for us to exert editorial control over that decision. If the user has tools to do so there is no reason for that user not to delete it. There is not serious benefit from having the contents of this page around, as the user has determined to leave. Thenub314 03:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the reason we delete user pages is that we are deleting the page on the sole author's request, not because they somehow belong to the user. We respect authors by providing them with the option to have their own work removed from the wiki if they so desire. The challenge with deleting user talk pages is that a significant component of the content comes from other authors, and I understand that we may have obligations to all authors to preserve history under the GFDL.
 * In this case, owing to S Larctia's relatively recent arrival at WV, there is a reasonably small set of authors in the history of the talk page. Perhaps the most effective solution is simply to reach out to all these authors and construct a collective permission to delete. Draicone (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the view to asks contributors first. That gives them also the chance to copy things to somewhere else (since they may have invested time, they can use this for reviewing their learning activities, ...) first + then consent.
 * One should also not forget what is said in the edit section:
 * By clicking the “Save Page” button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. ...
 * Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat + Identi.ca 13:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Beckground information. The user, a probationary custodian, requested the removal of her privileges at meta. She withdrew as a candidate by deleting her her candidacy page, user page, and her talk page. This user was blocked on wikipedia, October 22, 20:32, as a sock of Poetlister, and was globally locked. An unlock request is pending. --Abd 14:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User continues to edit since "determining to leave. --Abd 15:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominant group and subpages
Before Marshallsumter was banned from English Wikipedia, he created dozens of nonsense articles such as "Egalitarian mortality", "Heterointegration", "Repellor vehicle", "Radiative dynamo", "Abstract concept generator", as well as 11 articles related to the phrase or concept of "Dominant group". These articles (which consisted largely of material copied from academic journals or plagiarized from other Wikipedia articles), were all deleted. This dominant group "research project" is nothing more than a rambling justification for why Wikipedia should include his 11 articles about the phrase "Dominant group" as used in different fields. He has simply moved the debate regarding these articles from en.wiki to wikiversity since he is no longer allowed to participate there. In addition to it serving no legitimate academic purpose, it also violates the copyrights of several Wikipedia editors by including extensive quotations without attribution. Most of the subpages have already been blanked due to copyvio concerns. Kaldari 22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete due to copyright problems and lack of obvious educational value. MS's claim of fair use for the text he quotes is suspect because it is likely to be replaceable by public domain material. --S Larctia 13:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as to copyright problems, please read Attribution and copyright policy and Copyright Act of 1976 section 107. There are no copyright violations or real concerns. If any materials appear replaceable by public domain material it is earlier works that I have found and cited, but again these are from the research performed and are not the answer yet either. With respect to educational value, each hypothesis in the proposal is faced by any proposal anywhere until appropriate work (proof of concept) has been performed. Usually research isn't put before lay people (no offense, I'm just stated what I was taught) until it appears in publication. Ethics has been followed and mistakes have been corrected. All of this and much more is of educational value. I believe the real problem, if it can be called that, is selling information for money to clients that don't want to have to pay for due diligence (dd). If there are quotes in a work, then they feel they have to pay for dd. It's not for copyright concerns here but for client copyright and plagiarism concerns when they use the information they've purchased. They can't take the chance of making millions and then getting sued. I believe there may be a conflict of interest due to selling the information, client concerns (real or not), and the copyright violation myth being perpetrated on good people whose contributions given freely are covered by the 'good samaritan' principle. Mostly, it is the unreferenced statements of facts that are the real problem. To restate what's on the my 'Attribution and copyright policy page', quotes or no quotes, paraphrase or synonymy, if it's cited it's okay, if it isn't it's not. If it's not cited it's both plagiarism and copyright violation (depending of course on the date of publication of the copyrighted source). If a citation is there (hopefully accurate, complete, and the link isn't broken), it actually increases the value of the source. Abd's comments on fair use are correct. Marshallsumter 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, on the topic of being replaced by material already in the public domain, a timeline study from the apparent origin of the term in 1859 to recent (history of science) implies the need to use more recent works into the present. Marshallsumter 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of the above seems to miss the point: the CC license we use here specifically allows selling the material. If somebody is going to be sued for selling it (following the instructions of the license), it's simply not appropriate here. --SB_Johnny talk 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, that's good to know. Marshallsumter 16:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know, but given that, what do you think should be done? I actually think (just me personally) that your research is interesting, but I wonder if you might be undertaking it in the wrong environment, or at least publishing your notes in the wrong venue. --SB_Johnny talk 18:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I intend may not be what is being perceived. The original inquiry simply started out as curiosity about a phrase that appeared in a number of wikipedia articles yet stood unwritten about. I expected only as Kaldari has noted below, but found much more. I've begun many research projects with the same curiosity. Some resulting in cited publications. The problem to me is this particular endeavor comes with an unexpected and unwanted past. As the work stands now it has succeeded in proof of concept, the meaning of "dominant group" isn't always obvious from one field to the next and it has a long and varied history probably most associated with the history of evolution at least in the beginning. By stating this what I'm saying is the next phase is ready to begin so much of what is here and established can either be moved offline or put on a subpage such as 'Dominant group/Alternative hypotheses', for example, while the only true remaining one continues. I was about to try to demonstrate that only the Term hypothesis remains. What do you suggest? Marshallsumter 21:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyright concerns have mostly been dealt with it seems. As to the educational value, I see no possible educational value for this research. "Dominant group" is one of the most straight-forward, non technical phrases in the English language. Its meaning is obvious and consistent. You might as well be researching the phrase "red wagon" or "comfortable chair". The only purpose of this "research" is to further pursue an argument on English Wikipedia that is already settled. Kaldari 18:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Building an argument for using the term in a technical sense is perfectly valid as academic work. The only similar examples I can think of off-hand are "neurotype" and "sexual identity", but I assume those are enough to make the point.
 * If the copyright concerns aren't an issue anymore, then I think there's no valid argument here for deletion or exclusion. --SB_Johnny talk 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As indicated above I am in definite agreement to both. Marshallsumter 21:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 * In terms of the claim of fair use, surely the fact that the publication of citations is not necessary for the research investigation means that this is not fair use. For example, MS could simply write ""Dominant group" is used to mean "xyz" by Author A in Publication P (p. 101)". There's no need to quote every time if there's no commentary on the source. S Larctia 21:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * May I direct your attention to Article credit hypothesis which has now been concluded leaving only the 'Term hypothesis'. This should answer your concerns (hopefully). As I've mentioned before, I don't have to include any quotes, but I can precisely because of fair use, especially to prove a point. I am also not including a quote every time as the Google scholar allintitle search producing 74 such titles containing "dominant group" demonstrates. Further, timeline analysis should limit the number needed to much less than already used. However, any attempt to restrict the research arbitrarily is inadvisable and unnecessary. But, thank you for your suggestion. Marshallsumter 00:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. True oopyright violation is a matter of policy, and even fair use should probably not be decided in this RfD page. Most users are not expert in copyright. We need a Fair use policy. Students frequently copy whole pages for their own usage. A study of usage, which is what the subject research involves, requires exact quotation, paraphrase would not be showing primary evidence, and a link to an article, in lieu of exact quotation, would simply not work, it would be too cumbersome. The citations are necessary for the research, they are the very core of it. The arguments given relating to the user's alleged behavior at Wikipedia are irrelevant here, those kinds of arguments should be avoided. There is an issue as to how Dominant group fits into our knowledge hierarchy; I often prefer to see pages userfied, when relationship to other subjects is not clear and a topic is not a clear field of its own. That's a move that allows continued work without harm, and in user space, the collection of notes by a student doing research is more obviously fair use, should it be considered that there is copyvio. --Abd 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MILWAUKEE BREWERS
I'm not sure this page is within this project's scope. It's copied from http://louisville.bats.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110909&content_id=24436916&vkey=news_t556&fext=.jsp&sid=t556, by the way. Mathonius 17:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention to cleaning up Wikiversity, Mathonius.
 * As it stands, this page is blatant copyvio, from a single source. If it had been collected from multiple sources, I'd still have deleted it, as it was created by an IP editor. Otherwise, I'd consider moving it to the user's user space, blanking it, suggesting to the user that they replace material with links to sources, limiting quotation to some minimal level. RfD for obviously out-of-scope materials and copyvio should not be necessary unless a speedy deletion tag has been removed, and with copyvio that might not be enough. As to "scope," educational resources exist on sports and it's possible to study sport teams. But this page was easily speediable. If there is the slightest doubt about speediability, I suggest placing a speedy deletion tag, not starting an RfD. --Abd 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Okay, that's a good idea. Thanks for your feedback, Abd, I appreciate that. Mathonius 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)