User talk:Cormaggio

GFDL and copyright

Thanks for the tip! I decided to do the checking by giving the stuff to some wikiversitarian in a word file instead of the wiki-way, that was seeming to be a bit complicated... Well it is not going well at all, I realised I did a really poor work. But one told me it was better to send a poor work than nothing, so I'm trying to be brave and to continue it, even if I'm really depressed... Thanks for your cheering up! :) How are you in your case?--Karibou 09:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki

I am tranwikying the pages by viewing the article in edit mode, using cut and paste and making new article at wikiversity and pasting it there. I looked at the help which described other methods, but didn't inmediatelly figured out how the other method exactly works. I also transfer my pictures to the wikipedia commons (so that I can use them here at wikiversity). I am now going to transfer the last of my articles from wikibooks.

Cheers, KVDP 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

THANK-you. I was/am trying to get back onto IRC, but seem to forgotten a bit how (chatzilla). Still learning this stuff, so v. glad u round. Maybe sadly yes some template protection though you would probably know better which ones? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

audio introduction

"best for me is 8-22/3 UTC weekdays"
I think you mean from 8 to 22 UTC is best. I would like to try to meet you on Teamspeak (or Skype if you know how to record on Skype). I will ask the three questions and you can reply. I'm not sure we have had anyone using Macintosh on Teamspeak. Let me know if you have trouble getting on Teamspeak. If you want to try using teamspeak I suggest coming to freenode wikiversity-en as a staging location. Maybe August 27 during the 16:00-22:00 UTC+0 time window? --JWSchmidt 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"cool off from the interpersonal clash, and focus on generating a narrative of the case in question"

It is very difficult to take your advice while my opponent is eagerly making every attempt possible to push all the buttons he can find. Salmon of Doubt 20:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping! :)

Heya,

I replied to an e-mail I got from you a while back, and didn't hear anything after. How are you keeping?

I'm getting back to stuff after a bit of an unintended break. ttys ... Historybuff 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image delete request

Hi Cormac. I'd like to request you to speedy delete this image: Image:Deletionism.png. I find the combination of its title and content, together with the way it is being used, intimidating and vilificatory. However if I delete it myself, I can well anticipate the response this will produce from certain quarters. Thanks. --McCormack 12:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There was uploaded a new version of this media file: [1]: see edit summary please. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict Project

Thanks for the welcome. To answer your question: both. I plan on providing a personal narrative as part of a personal investigation; my ultimate goal is to try to understand for myself why the nexus are nexus, from an emic POV; in other words, and in two parts: what motivates them (us) to do the things they (we) do?, and how/why do those things bring them (us) into conflict with other users or the goals of Wikiversity? I have lots of thoughts, but it will take time to organize and put them all down. I love questions, though, so I'd be glad if you asked me more about what I write. The Jade Knight 07:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory it would be useful to do as a group. In practice, the embittered parties would be at eachother's throats again, and the entire project would degenerate into a "learning project" on how deletionists are barbarians (</end rhetorical device>). No, I prefer having us keep separate pages for now. Discussion can come later, after reflection. The Jade Knight 07:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I actually really appreciate you setting up this project; it was severely needed. We need to figure out a good way of resolving conflict here at Wikiversity. And in order to do that, we need to do a lot of thinking. So, thanks. The Jade Knight 08:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you can think of anyone else who should be on my list, let me know. My perspective is, unfortunately, rather small, but I'd like to expand it. The Jade Knight 08:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tx 4 yr message and invite/prompt; have now "narrativized" my "role" :). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re humour - yes; I learnt lesson #1 with humour is to make fun of oneself. Others luv it. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate feedback of my profiles here. They are meant to be honest, fair, and accurate. That's part of the reason I'm going out of my way to ask you to take a look at them; if I'm being biased (very possible), I'd like you to propose ammendations; though part of the profiles will likely need examples or explanations to fully appreciate/understand. Mostly, I'm wondering if I've left out bad stuff on myself. The Jade Knight 08:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I threw up a (brief, limited) personal reflection and responded to your comments; I really appreciate them. I kind of feel like I'm at the point now where I'm ready to discuss; I've spent the past couple of hours reflecting, and I feel like it's been very useful. The Jade Knight 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict and incivility

"your comments/actions, especially those that have caused obvious offence? Have you thought about the possible consequences of calling someone a "little kid" (for example)? Also, I think your pretence of anonymity in the Student union conflict is unnecessary"

I think it would be useful if you made a list of "those that have caused obvious offence" then I can comment about what you put into the list.

calling someone a "little kid" <-- are you saying that I called someone a little kid?

"pretence of anonymity in the Student union conflict" <-- I'm not sure what this means....please expand you comments. I was anonymous? I was pretending to be anonymous? --JWSchmidt 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'd simply ask however, are you not aware that you have been causing offence?" <-- I wonder how the term "simply" applies to what you have been doing. Let us explore my awareness. I am aware that both you and SB_Johnny have come to my user talk page, seemingly with the goal of making me aware that I have been "causing offence". SB_Johnny requested that I "calm down" and I informed him that I am calm. He then told me that he was "not going to try to have a discussion" with me, which strikes me as an unusual message to leave on a user discussion page. He then said that I have been "throwing turds" at people, which sounds amazingly like he was throwing turds at me. He then said what he was really trying to say was "please stop", but he informed me of this by expressing a threat, paraphrasing: please stop or I will need to do the whole RfC/ArbCommish thing. Of course, that is a credible threat from him, even though Wikiversity has no RfC and no ArbCom...he has the unique power to create new policy on a whim, without even having to type a single word on proposed policy page....as he puts it (paraphrasing...I'll send you the IRC log if you want to experience the full enjoyment) "just because I'm me I can do what nobody else can do". He then told me that he refuses to talk to me because I "have been at best erratic, at worst irrational", which sounded to me like, gee, I don't know quite how to describe it.....at worst irrational? Then, after refusing to tell me what was "causing offence", he provided two links and gave me the an order: "If you don't see why there's a problem there, just give up your bits". I suppose this qualifies as yet another SB_Johnny "invented policy of the moment" by which SB_Johnny can order fellow Wikiversity custodians to either develop the magical power to read his mind OR ELSE stop being a custodian. I must say, when working in such a collegial atmosphere I find it hard to think of my actions as "causing offence"...in relative terms, I feel like I'm not even close to being in the "causing offence" league. SB_Johnny then proposed that things would be peachy if whenever someone has a problem with my editing they go and talk to SB_Johnny. I "see" how this meshes well with your hope that I can be more "aware that you have been causing offence". Yes, it will help when we are all on our little play ground to have everyone go running to SB_Johnny and whine, "Teacher, teacher, JWS hit me!" Conclusion: after hours of playing the "I came to your talk page because I cannot talk to you" game, SB_Johnny had refused to tell me what has "been causing offence". Similarly, you have refused to tell me what has "been causing offence", even though I asked you to provide me with a list. So the answer to your question "are you not aware that you have been causing offence?" is this: I am aware that both you and SB_Johnny expect me to read your minds. In my view, it is more efficient to try this method: Person X takes offense, Person X comes to my talk page and says, "I take offense when you do Z". In fact, it says at the top of my talk page, "If you have a complaint about something I have done, please feel free to let me know what is on your mind." Obviously, the problem here is that I am from Mars where the natives lack the brain lobe that allows Earthlings like you and SB_Johnny to read minds. Please take this as an official plea for medical exemption to the standard cultural rule on Earth which makes it implicit that everyone is expected to "Learn from conflict and incivility" by reading minds. Given my brain defect that prevents me from reading minds, I request a special Wikiversity tutoring program to address my medically-imposed learning defect. Specifically, I formally request that you and SB_Johnny respect my medical disability by explaining to me, in simple written English on my user talk page the specific cases where I "have been causing offence". I vow that I will then fully review and discuss those cases. --JWSchmidt 15:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"show more self-awareness" <-- a worthy goal...for everyone. While on the theme of awareness, maybe we could also keep in mind the idea that people who make relatively few edits at a wiki (and who have little participation in the wiki's IRC chamnel) are at risk of being less aware of what is going on at the wiki than are people who make relatively more edits to the wiki and who frequent the chat channel. --JWSchmidt 16:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I am interested in such a project, but I would like to know in what role. I am able to respond on my feelings about a topic, and I can also craft my own philosophical views of a situation. If you ever want me to respond to a specific area, please feel free to link me. I am willing to offer a lot, but its hard to establish what is where sometimes. Ottava Rima 00:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Follicular Dendritic Cells

Dear Cormack:

This is about the Follicular Dendritic Cell electron micrograph I put up with its definition in Wikiversity and Wikimedia Commons. For some reason that is not clear to me the micrograph was deleted from the Wikiversity Follicular Dendritic cell site. I would like to know the reason if I may. That micrograph was not published anywhere and it is my property or it was at least until I put it up on Wikiversity. Would you please find out what happened and let me know my email is aszakal@comcast.net . I am kind of anxious about that. I admit at one point I asked for deleting the micrograph because I put up a higher resolution one. But now that one is deleted too. So it may be do to some confusion. So, should I resubmit the higher resolution one with all the text and references? I already tried this but I could not submit the picture when I tried to edit it. I hope I did not confused you completely. What shell I do? --Aszakal 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity movie

Wait! But what's happened! I need to get more involved with Wikiversity as well :/ Mac Davis 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse or comment

Hello, Cormaggio. Would you please endorse or comment on these matters [2] [3][4] [5] [6]? I am concerned that a lot of things have happened off-wiki for which documentation is lacking. Best, Hillgentleman|Talk 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Action research, again, and still unsure

Heya Cormac :-). As you know, I'm curious about "Action Research", but am apparently a slow learner. You said somewhere or another that it is "about changing a group activity with a certain intention of gaining joint understanding". I'd like to ask a few questions about that, but I'll start with the basic one:

Is action research always performed by a single researcher among a group, or does the whole group push the direction? --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya - thanks for this! I'd say action research is more commonly done as a group activity, though there's nothing to say it can't be done by an individual. It's more commonly done by groups, because most social research contexts are social spaces - involving a number of different people, often with different roles. Action research is an attempt to understand this social context through working on it (ie changing it), and seeing what kinds of understanding we can generate through this work (eg. how can we improve this context?; what were we doing before we set about this action research?; what resistances to change do we experience?; is it more difficult for some people to affect development here than it is for others?). So, it makes sense for this work to be done as a joint activity - since the context is itself a joint activity. However, there can be exceptions to this - some action research could simply involve changing your own teaching style (for example), reflecting on this change, and using reflections to fuel further changes/adaptations. That would be a more individual type of action research. So, there's a suitably vague answer to a simple question. :-) You can expect plenty more of those - action research is a pretty loosely defined methodology in many ways. However, it is always (as far as I have seen) rooted in development and reflection, in an attempt to increase understanding, and further development. (I'm wondering if this discussion could/should be moved to the Action research discussion group, or somewhere else a little more 'public'?) Cormaggio ^talk 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding a bit more on groups, sub-groups, and individuals, some action research that is based on understanding a social context will try to involve everyone in that social context in order for the research agenda to be relevant to everyone in that context. This has explicitly been used as a tool for 'empowerment' - enabling people to have a say in developing a system that they are a part of, even if (or especially because) they have not had a say before. Sometimes the research agenda will be developed by a pre-determined 'core' group, and then the 'intervention' work will be carried out by a wider group of participants, and facilitated by the core group. Sometimes the role of that core group could be played by a single individual, in the same kind of set up as before. Reflecting on my own research, I've been trying to involve more people in this research agenda, and empower people to take control of it, but I feel as if I've only very partially succeeded in any of my original intentions. It's certainly been interesting, and I'm indebted to many people who have joined discussions, activities etc, but I had wanted it to be a lot more participative (and active) than it has been in many ways. Cormaggio ^talk 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well, I'd rather just have a conversation between you and me, which you can move somewhere else when it's done. Your passion is clear as always, but your answer to my question didn't make sense to me, because you jumped into theory rather than practice. So I'll rephrase:

As a practitioner of AR (shorthand from now on), do you have a plan ahead of time, or do you just get the group together and let the group come up with the plan? --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, did none of that make sense? But anyway, thanks - it's always good to be pushed - and it's always good to be told when you're not making sense...

So, the answer to your question is.. surprise, surprise: it depends! Different groups will have different agendas and different ways of working - it's just that simple, and that complicated at the same time. But, usually, it's an idea to start off with figuring out who the group of participants are - in terms of who will be forming an initial thinking/planning group - and then subjecting the emerging plan to either wider discussion, or straight into implementation. It's supposed to be a flexible, developmental process - where people can say: "this isn't useful/interesting/working", and then discuss how to improve what you're doing as part of this AR. Does that make sense? Cormaggio ^talk 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Delineation

In reply to [7],

We program software with checks and balances, validation steps, verification processes, logs, restrictive usability, and other foolproof steps, not because we do not trust users but because we do not claim machines are perfect. Humans make machines, and humans are known to make errors, so machines make errors. Each of these areas require thought about delineation, appropriateness, or just plain political correctness of their implementation and process. When these implementations or processes are unstable, they randomly act and cause inconsistent behavior. That randomness and inconsistency is directly comparable to irresponsibility that further results in unfairness. The pages on a wiki are unstable, as there is a lack of implementation to make them stable. I feel the concerns to make a page stable is significantly greater than the delineation, as suggested in your reply, about pages on living people. I feel it is an error to put the cart before the horse and implement such delineation (as it has already been done) without any further implementation of stability to the pages. Even though there is changes upstream to implement versions to wiki-pages, it is part of this delay that even such an implementation like that where I lose hope. It is obvious that you, I, and almost everybody else have been compelled to do (internal) reviews in an unstable environment, and this is not good as it leaves it open for randomness and inconsistency. Would you trust all your money accounts being kept on a wiki with unstable pages that anybody can edit? One can assume all the good faith in the world, but can you imagine how much time will be spent to make sure that all those unstable pages have accurate information. Put it on a scale, like a wiki-bank with the same number of people and value as a regular bank. I highly doubt there would be no concern about the information being kept on unstable wiki pages.

I didn't even mention anything in the last paragraph about "authority" as you seemed concerned about in your earlier reply, [8], except that no matter how one tries to delineate or segregate, it is still political. In related journalistic concerns about internal review, Sue Garden said, "We know that many media organizations have a political agenda, and do not attempt to be fair or objective." It is easy for the for-profit media corporations to not be fair while it protects it's assets. However, WMF is a not for profit media organization with volunteers. She makes it clear about delineation that is applied different than the difference between internal and external, "How to behave when covering your own organization. The biggest issue here was just to be very, very clear about which hat you were wearing - the employee hat or the journalistic hat. So for example when my head of arts journalism would call the office of the Vice President for comment on a story, he would clearly identify himself as acting in a journalistic capacity. When he interviewed me, he made it clear it was an interview, and not an employer/employee conversation. This is pretty straightforward, and I think Wikinews is already on a good path here." I lost hope when inconsistency was obvious where those with bits were being unable, or by random inability, to delineate themselves and wear that different hat while being involved (about living people). It is obvious that the random inability is due to unstable wiki pages.

There is some deeper discussion about interfaces and ethics: User:Dzonatas/Ethics_and_MediaWiki/Edit_wars#Resources. We really do not need any kind of political delineation between internal and external, as suggested, in a no central authority project, as that would obviously create some sort of centralized authority by some random inability. What is needed is moral buffers.

Dzonatas 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict and incivility

Thank you for the feedback. I will definitely consider restoring it, but no promises. If you or someone else felt like restoring it, I might be somewhat OK with that. Emesee 09:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sj/thoughts

ping --mikeu ^talk 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

km's 100¢ deletion's

I put this page 100¢, 100¢, 2 100¢, 3 on wikiversity for educational purposes. Sorry it is three pages. It wouldn't fit on one page. km

km's 100¢ deletions

OK, you know that Wikiversity is a educational site. I wanted to make several pages that were educational, so I made the american currency pages.

G'day Cor

I hope you're well - I thought I'd swing by here to let you know that at some point, perhaps when the dust has settled a bit around here, I wonder if you might be interested in talking through a few aspects of the JW block thing - in particular where you feel mistakes have been made (if any) in the exercise of 'authority' ('kicks', 'blocks', 'ops' and 'bans', I guess :-) - plus your thoughts on how the ethics project may evolve, and how to find positive ways forward after this wobble (along with where are the limits of discussions which add value, are permissable, desirable etc.) cheers, Privatemusings 09:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Licensing a photo

Hi cormaggio, I think this photo [9]is useful to wikiversity(to illustrate how to pick a good spot in astronomical observations for amateurs). The copyright holder has Tunc Tezel left a link for copyright enquiries. I would like to send him a message, but since you have done these things before, what licences do you recommend and can you provide some links for information to the photographer? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reflection

I read your reflection on the JWS blocking. I think that we really need to have some kind of Bill of Rights/Social Contract that sets out clearly what we expect and provides a uniform rule of law. Geo.plrd 00:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have pillars called a statement of principles. For civility, I would like to see the golden rule used. Geo.plrd 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Cormaggio/Block on JWSchmidt

Sorry about the delay in responding to Reflections on your block. I am both busy in the real world and feeling intimidated from actively participating at Wikiversity. I read User:Cormaggio/Block on JWSchmidt. I will try to think of something constructive to add to User talk:Cormaggio/Block on JWSchmidt. I must say that I would find it easier to think about how to move forward if a few little things like un-banning me from #wikiversity-en were on the table. --JWSchmidt 18:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Better footing?

"I do not believe that their concerns have been dealt with on the basis of your own claims about your activity and your intentions. I, personally, have certainly not been assuaged by your reaction to the highlighting of your activity" <-- If someone has "concerns" about my editing they should come to my talk page and tell me what is on their mind. Based upon your comments, I suspect that you continue to function as a "shoulder to cry on" for people who would like to kick me out of Wikiversity and probably also for any other complaint that someone has about my participation in Wikiversity. If you are preventing other editors from discussing their concerns with me, then you are disrupting Wikiversity and preventing people from sorting out their concerns. For some reason you remain unable to express to me what you personally find objectionable about my participation in Wikiversity. I find your refusal to discuss your concerns with me particularly distressing. Your vague statements about unhappy editors give me nothing to respond to. If you have a real concern, please tell me what it is. This is wiki communication 101: provide a link to the offensive edit and state in a short English sentence what you find objectionable. Rather than engage in that simple and direct process of communication you have instead engaged in a strange series of acts by which it has been made clear to the Wikiversity community that you are functioning as part of a team that includes members who want me to leave the project. It does no good for you to try to distance yourself from just the most absurdly objectionable behaviors of your team members. Your credibility is destroyed by lending your support to other custodians who have gone out of their way to invent false charges against me and try to use those false charges to "justify" blocking, banning and de-sysoping me. At the very least you have the obligation to respond to my demands that you either provide evidence to support your charges against me or retract them. If you continue to expect me to admit to the false charges you have made against me you will continue to be disappointed. "Your editing has caused hurt, offence and/or concern" <-- This has been the case since my first wiki edits many years ago. I was immediately accused of adding content to Wikipedia that was a copyright violation. Of course, the content that I added to Wikiversity was not a copyright violation since it was text that was written by me. In most cases, it has been a simple matter to talk to people and get them over their concerns about my editing. Over the years, in a few cases, I have had to deal with other editors who game the system and make a great show of being hurt by my editing when the fact is that all I am doing is advancing the mission of the wiki. In a few cases I have had to deal with other editors who are unable to understand my edits. So, when I am confronted with claims that my "editing has caused hurt, offence and/or concern" I must try to figure out if I just need to discuss my editing with someone, if the person taking offense is gaming the system or if the other editor is just confused about what is going on. In all cases, for me to figure out the problem I need to talk to the other editor. In cases where the other editor refuses to talk to me about their concerns it is almost always the case that the other editor is trying to game the system. It appears to me that you have been giving aid to editors who want to game the system and you have become their tool....they know that they can use you to game the system. It would be easy for you to extricate yourself from this unfortunate situation...I still hope that you will do so. "Your block was a temporary one" <-- I do not believe that. Had the decision been left to other members of your team I would never have been unblocked. Their "solution" to JWSchmidt is "get rid of him". This is particularly disturbing because all I have done is help create and develop Wikiversity as a center for online learning. What do these people want for Wikiversity if they want to get rid of me? It seems to me that they want the power to control the content of Wikiversity and the type of learning activities that Wikiversity participants can take part in. Rather than welcome everyone to come and pursue their individual learning goals, they want to set limits and otherwise impose censorship...and rather than reach decisions about Wikiversity content by discussion and consensus they feel free to abuse their tools and their power to get rid of someone who wants to keep Wikiversity open to all learners. "the disruption that your editing had caused" <-- I'd still like you to provide a list of the edits and for each edit a short English sentence that says what "disruption" I caused. I'm sure that deletionists find their deletionism to be "disrupted: when I prevent them from deleting someone's good faith contribution to Wikiversity. If I am studying how a Wikipedia editor violated Wikipedia policy, say, to create a biased biography article about a living person, then I am sure they find my editing "disruptive" to their attempt to avoid facing the consequences of violating Wikipedia policy. If someone claims, without providing any evidence, that a wiki editor is "outing" another wiki editor, then I suppose I am disrupting their attempt to convict someone of "outing" without having to provide any evidence of "outing". I do not worry too much about causing these kinds of disruption. If there is some other type of disruption that you are concerned about then I would like to hear about it some time. "It was not solely based on your inviting Moulton to work on research guidelines" <-- I never said that it was, but as I read this you pointed to the false and distorted charges that were in the "review" and the only explicitly stated reason was the idea that I had done wrong by inviting Moulton to work on the research guidelines. It is perfectly reasonable for me to frequently mention the false charge that I encouraged Moulton to transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org. What I did was openly discussed in #wikiversity-en before I did it and it was nothing more than a good faith attempt to start working on changes to the research policy that had been suggested by Jimbo. There was never a valid reason to block me, ban me from #wikiversity-en or remove my custodianship. "the related 'false charges' you've been explicitly mentioning represent a relatively very small part of my personal concerns" <-- maybe some day you can explain to me what your real concerns are...so far all I have been provided with by way of "explanation" is a bunch of smoke and noise...its like a scene from the Wizard of Oz. The smoke and noise do not scare me. "I'm not sure if the block was clearly enough communicated to you" <-- I do not agree. I think it was communicated as effectively as was possible. The problem was that there was no valid reason for the block. Various excuses have been made, but they are all just lame excuses. The community saw through the charade and that is why I was unblocked. "I am not trying to restrict Wikiversity in any way, except to promote civility" <-- If so, then hope you can carefully examine the civility of your team members and those who voted to keep me blocked from editing. One has called me "troll", one called me "whiner" and one wants me to fuck off and leave the project. I'm still working my way through all the charges that have been made against me...I wonder what other pleasures await me there. It is truly a sickening process to read and respond to the abuse that has been heaped upon me. There are a thousand constructive things I would rather be doing, but the bogus charges made against be are still choking me. I never expected Wikiversity to be a toxic playground swarming with bullies who feel free to abuse their positions of trust. I had hopes that by this point the work of setting up a new wiki would be mostly complete and we could concentrate on having fun collaborating with like-minded scholars on our learning goals. I fear it will take several additional years to repair the damage that has been done by these bullies. "Wikipedia disease" might not be comprehensive enough to describe this mess....I guess I should just admit that we have our very own "Wikiversity disease"....I think Wikiversity has managed to sink even lower than Wikipedia. "it's very hard to have a constructive discussion when you maintain your negative characterisations of me and others" <-- I'm not sure what you can otherwise realistically expect. Yes, I have seen some crime victims beg the judge to take mercy on the criminal, but my priority is the future of Wikiversity. I see no future for Wikiversity of I just cave in to the thugs that want to rule Wikiversity and turn Wikiversity into some abomination full of restrictions and censorship. I've always known that we would have to self-censor Wikiversity content, but I did not expect that we would have to deal with people like McCormack and "Centaur of Attention" who want to impose restrictions on Wikiversity that are not in the best interest of the Wikimedia Foundation. "calling for an 'amnesty', and a chance to have this discussion on a better footing than before" <-- I'm always open to discussion as the path to solving the problems of Wikiversity. I fear that the thugs have driven away and intimidated many of the honest Wikiversity participants. It seems like there is still a lot of pain ahead since the thugs are still free to strut around abusing their power. Right now they are attracting more thugs while the honest participants hide and cower. The whole charade is truly sickening. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"I've given you plenty of explicit examples on this page of what I've been disturbed by - and many of these are also in the review. Sure - maybe I still need to communicate this in more detail with you - but I have not "refused", and I would appreciate if you could simply stop this categorically false statement" <-- I fully appreciate the many "examples" you have provided, but what I have asked for is discussion of all the false and distorted charges in those examples. However, you continue to refuse to discuss the false and distorted charges you have made against me. "this categorically false statement" <-- please quote my false statement and then we can discuss it. "stop characterising people as 'thugs'" <-- people who strut around a wiki calling the work of other people "garbage", feeling free to delete pages for reasons such as "I'm not interested in this", telling other participants that their contributions are worthless, telling long-term participants to quit the project, bragging that they can get away with abuse because "I'm me", publishing false claims that they never support with evidence or even discuss, feeling free to call fellow Wikiversity participants "troll" and advise "go fuck yourself", imposing blocks and bans without discussion, warning or valid reasons, going outside of the consensus process to desysop custodians.....you suggest a label. "I would urge you to tone down your language and hostility in general" <-- I've been around the wiki world long enough to ignore this kind of "advice" and attempt to game the system. I've described your actions and the actions of your team members. You can attempt to characterize my descriptions of your bad behavior as "hostile", but all I am doing is holding a mirror up in front of you. If there is any hostility present maybe it is from the people who call the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants "garbage" or sysops who feel free to call fellow Wikiversity participants "troll" and offer friendly advice like "go fuck yourself" or sysops who have felt free to make false charges against me and impose a block on me without a valid reason or ban me from #wikiversity-en without warning, discussion or a reason or go outside of the consensus process and use those false charges to "justify" the removal of my custodianship. "tone down your language" <-- I'm still waiting for Wikiversity:Censorship policy....maybe something like: "The ruling party can do anything, including tell people "go fuck yourself", but if you are not part of the ruling party, then anything you say can be censored." "you have clearly pushed several people well past their personal thresholds" <-- You "clearly" like to let me know that some things are "clear" and "obvious"....but you always stop short of actually telling me what you are talking about. Please provide a list of those who I have "pushed well past their personal thresholds". Let us examine those "thresholds" in detail. Are you making reference to the people who are "pushed well past their personal thresholds" when they cannot delete the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants? Are you making reference to the people who are "pushed well past their personal thresholds" when they are challenged to provide evidence to support their absurd claims? Are you making reference to the people who are "pushed well past their personal thresholds" when they are challenged for having imposed a bad block or ban? "your hostility" <-- Please document your claim that I am hostile. List the edits I have made that demonstrate my hostility. As part of this exercise, please describe how you have followed Assume Good Faith while reaching the conclusion that I am hostile. "a clear process (or many processes, in fact) by which people can participate - and I honestly believe that, after two years, this is still not clear enough, and is therefore potentially off-putting to many potential contributors and learners." <-- In my view, there might be a million ways for people to participate constructively at Wikiversity. In my view, Wikiversity should invite new visitors to explore and develop ways of participating that suit their personal learning styles and goals. I have no objection to also providing conventional paths for participation that do not require that new Wikiversity editors think about how to use wiki technology....there is nothing wrong with providing conventional paths for participation that allow people to use wiki technology to replicate what they know from world of bricks-and-mortar education. However, I am also a strong advocate of leaving Wikiversity open to experimentation and exploration and for letting people wander in and follow their own path to learning. When someone tries to tell me that Wikiversity cannot be open to experimentation and exploration I'm not going to roll over and say, "Gee, you know, I agree with you!" "this is still not clear enough" <-- the problem is, rather than encourage people to "click the edit button and learn collaboratively" Wikiversity has been hijacked and turned into an absurd image of Wikipedia. I've had to battle just to keep even a tiny three word invitation to edit on the main main page. "McCormack's efforts to document what kinds of materials we have, and could have - are good steps towards our mission of figuring out what works and what doesn't work in a wiki environment." <-- Yes, when you decide what is allowed and remove what you do not like it is easy to predict what will "work". "if he indeed did say that" <-- If you do not believe me why don't yo ask him? Or the other people who were in #wikiversity-en at the time? Or better yet, agree that #wikiversity-en is a place for open discussion and let people publish the log of the channel. "building on his work, not attacking it" <-- if he wants a website where he can control who participates and how they participate then he can go to WikiEducator or some other website. I intend to make sure that Wikiversity remains open to everyone. "a lot of the energy you've put in recently...would be best directed towards these discussions...in an appropriate space, ie a policy discussion page" <-- I find it interesting that you feel the need to advise me to participate in developing policy. When Wikiversity was pushed into crisis by people complaining about release of "private" information I worked to develop a policy that would move the community past that problem. I've been told that other sysops willfully refused to help develop and make official that needed policy. When I called for that policy to be applied to #wikiversity-en nothing was done. Where were you when we needed a privacy policy? For my efforts to develop needed policies you published a bunch of charges against me claiming "policy manipulation". Rather use my limited wiki time to participate constructively at Wikiversity, refuting your absurd charges of "policy manipulation" is the next thing I have to do at Wikiversity. "it's against these interests to act as divisively as you have been before, during, and after the block" <-- How have I acted "divisively"? By preventing people from running around Wikiversity calling the contributions of other participants "garbage"? By preventing McCormack from removing Wikiversity's invitation to new student participants that they participate at Wikiversity? By standing up to abusive admins who call people "troll" and who tell long-term project participants to leave the project? By standing up for myself when false charges are made against me and used to "justify" blocking me, banning me and removing my custodial status? Please explain exactly how I have been "divisive". You are the one who has thrown your support behind abusive sysops and created a protective shield around all the horrible practices of your team members. Please don't bother advising me on how to participate at Wikiversity while you continue to support your team members who have pulled Wikiversity so low. If you do the honorable thing and retract the false charges you have made against me, remove the ban against my participation in #wikiversity-en and go to the meta-wiki and explain that there was no community consensus to remove my custodianship then I might again start to believe that you have good intentions with respect to the development of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A sympathetic ear

Cormaggio, Continuing on-wiki, from your email in our previous correspondence,

but the wiki comments are there for all to see, and they have been mostly documented in the course of the many on-wiki discussions. Perhaps part of the problem is that you need to read comments with a 'sympathetic ear' to see the hurt etc - but the fact that people have expressed their concern on-wiki is clearly apparent to me (and I emphasise that I have absolutely no agenda here except to maintain civility). Does this make sense to you?

Now there's the rub: A "symphathetic ear" is well if you want to have your own perspective; however, the sympathetic ear is subjective, my sympathetic ear may very well differ from yours. You cannot say your ear is better than mine or vice versa, can you? Especially when you are accusing someone has hurt another, which is a serious matter, does a sympathetic ear provide a sound proof? How can it replace the statement of the actual victim? Cormaggio, I honestly wish to understand your perspective; and my questions are genuine questions. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hillgentleman - I'm sorry, I've taken a break for the last few days - hence this delay. On "a sympathetic ear", the thing I want to stress here is that it is absolutely not about my perspective being "better" than someone else's, or "proven" - it's about being sensitive to problems, and responding to them - even though I fully acknowledge that we're all sensitive to different things, and to different extents. So, an example of where I see hurt/offence/concern with John's actions would be the following: Jade Knight expresses his anger [10] about JWS's insertion of his POV [11] on the Albanian sea port history page. he then adds another edit [12] in which he adds the word "offended" in relation to the action that John had taken. That's an example of where I can see hurt or offence - and I would have instantly seen it in those two edits from Jade even if he hadn't used the word "offended". That Jade then said he felt that John "owned" the page with his subsequent edit [13] confirms how I would interpret those previous edits. Do you see what I mean here? Do you think it's hard to see the offence taken? Cormaggio ^talk 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You think you can see anger, hurt or offence, but who has explicitly said so? Jade Knight used the word "offend", but in the context of that word, it is nearly impossible to be certain to know if he meant that he himself was offended; or even if he were, in what way or to what degree he was so. Are you sure you are not reading too much into others' comments? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This edit [[14] is not Jade Knight's. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm not reading too much into this - backed up by what Jade then said on John's talk page. I disagree that it's "almost impossible" to see what Jade meant by the word "offended" - to me, he was clearly offended. You could ask Jade directly if you want to confirm that. This is just one example, btw - McCormack has explicitly said he felt bullied, and Salmon_of_Doubt, while I don't remember if he's said so explicitly, has made it quite clear that he doesn't appreciate the "learning projects" John made about him. Cormaggio ^talk 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I know that's not Jade's edit - it's John's edit, that Jade pointed to in saying he felt John "owned" the page. Cormaggio ^talk 15:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't remember certain things people have actually said, let us note that there are big differences between "hurt", "offended", "doesn't appreciate" and "angered" (and, perhaps, "annoyed"). And when we try to reconstruct the situation with our bare hands, we rely very much on our own impressions on these comments. Let us go away from second-guessing for the moment and talk about ourselves. Cormaggio, at that time, did You feel that John had angered You in any way? Was it so much that he had to be blocked from editing? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been angered by seeing how John has acted towards other people at times leading up to the block (though not all that time, obviously), and what he has provoked in them. Recently, as John has been reacting to my criticisms and the block, I have been angered by how John has characterised my actions and those of others (SB_Johnny, McCormack, Jade Knight); and his general hostility to what I have been saying. I wouldn't say I'm always "angered" - I'm also sad, depressed, frustrated, despairing... But yes, John had absolutely angered, frustrated, and concerned me at the time of the block - that's why I took action. Hillgentleman - I might be toning down my language here at times (since there has been such inflammatory language used at times), but if you look at the activity that is laid out in the review (and the edits around the edits cited), I think there is ample evidence there of hurt, frustration, offence, concern, and anger. Cormaggio ^talk 16:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not say that I have been "angered" by what JWSchmidt has done/written, but it takes a lot to anger me (I've gotten angry perhaps a handful of times in the last decade). It has, however, certainly "bothered" me. I'd go so far to say that it has "significantly bothered" or even "disturbed" me. His use of straw men I'd consider "offensive" or "dishonest". I also find many of his actions particularly unwelcoming. But I've never been angered or hurt by him (irked, perhaps, but never angered). Hope that clarifies my feelings. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also: I would class some of what JWSchmidt has done as likely to be offensive or hurtful to others. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking stock

We have noted that McCormack had said he felt bullied (or pressurised) by John. We can look at their edits to understand the situation. We may try to understand John's perspective on McCormack's work or help John understand McCormack's work, and vice versa. And then there are disputes between Salmond and John and between Jade Knight and John; but the involved parties had had long discussions in the disputes and it would be too simplistic for me to just characterise these edits without reading the discussions. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have looked further into this, it seems biased that Cormaggio would nominate Jade Knight now becuase Jade Knight and JWS have made similar edits that provoke said feelings. If Cormaggio has no problem with and can be sympathetic to Jade Knight despite his actions, than that type of sympathy would be expected to applied to everyone, even JWS. I think Jade Knight's "straw man" argument is easy to point out, especially since Jade Knight used a straw man against me. If use of the straw man is considered "offensive or dishonest" by Jade Knight, then I'm sure how I felt on Wikiversity:Nominations_for_checkuser/Cormaggio can be duly understood. Cormaggio states he won't make the same mistakes again[15], but his nomination Jade Knight seems more sympathetic to Jade Knight than others that had to deal with similar issues. Dzonatas 15:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas, I've made it quite clear how such claims by you are spurious. You may have a long history of engaging in "frivolous complaints" at Wikipedia, but there is no need to bring such baseless accusations here to Wikiversity. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 09:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that I'm somehow favouring one person over another is quite ridiculous. If Jade Knight did something that I thought was problematic, I would say it to him. Cormaggio ^talk 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a decision made by a few bureaucrats, including Cormaggio and Wales, put on the colloquium page[16], to not allow any case history on wikipedians or anybody that is not notable. Jade recently made a comment[17] on this talk page in a manner that goes against that decision stated by Wales. Jade's comment is an attack that further conflates issues and shows further attempts to be hurtful towards me. Details of what Jade brings up has already been mentioned here on Wikiversity: [18]. Maybe it will be noticed that two people have made such offensive remarks towards me seem to have got nominated for custodian here on Wikiveristy. It appears Cormaggio hasn't said anything to find such remarks towards me as problematic. My suggestion isn't to say Cormaggio's favors one over another, but what Cormmagio has done is to be unfair. Cormaggio hasn't acknowledge what even I find as offensive and hurtful. Dzonatas 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, from above, Cormaggio felt he was angered by some of John's behaviours. And Jade Knight said above that he was bothered, disturbed by John Schmidt and he found some of his arguements as strawman and thus offensive and dishonest, but not angered or hurt. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok - so, what are you saying, or trying to figure out in this "taking stock" section, Hillgentleman? Cormaggio ^talk 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  - So far you are the only one I can find who has expressed "anger"; and we are still looking for someone who is genuinely hurt by John Schmidt's edits. I have expected that you got some solid and objective evidence (and not just your interpretation of the events) to justify the block out of the top of your head. Best, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Hmmmm - I think you're getting sidetracked here, Hillgentleman. Jade Knight repeats here he was "disturbed" by John's editing - and this is in the context of his professed cool head (ie not getting angry). Previously (at John's talk page), in response to John saying: "I assume you are making reference to my "pointed" editing that arises from the fact that I think Wikiversity should welcome new contributors and help them learn to edit", he replied: "The problem is that several editors here (including myself) feel that your projects do the opposite; that they make certain users feel very unwelcome at Wikiversity. Part of the problem is that what is silly to one may be extremely offensive to others." He went on to say: "You may want to reconsider your use of loaded rhetoric in the future, as it is most likely only to offend", saying that this rhetoric was "dishonest, self-serving argument". He might not say he himself is "hurt", but it's as near as makes no difference in the context of being concerned about someone else's editing. That's what I would read into the example edit I pointed to above - and I would expect any reasonable person to react similarly when someone points out their concern. Similarly, Salmon of Doubt made it clear he felt "mocked": [19] [20] [21]. This edit [22] shows he was concerned enough to remove John's text, saying "Don't use wikiversity project pages to get into meta fights with other participants. The removed content will serve to distance new users from this project." Darklama addressed John's editing with this edit [23], saying: "JWSchmidt's recent edits seem to be out of anger or frustration, make this more reasonable". McCormack said he felt "bullied" by John - however, McCormack has recently refrained from responding to John (even when he feels hurt), since he feels that John will only further attack him. I know this from discussions on IRC. And I have been told by other people on IRC that they feel "intimidated" by John, and that they don't feel comfortable participating on wiki or IRC when he acts like he has been acting of late. So - what does all of this tell us? I would say it's pretty clear that many people are unhappy with what John has been doing - and, I would say, that they have felt some form of hurt or offence - or seen clear potential for other people to be offended. I don't think it matters if you can't personally see "hurt" here - but I would be very surprised if you can't see sufficient concern to flag this as an issue that warrants attention. I'm also very surprised - and concerned, and depressed - that John doesn't seem to recognise this. Cormaggio ^talk 09:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity has not yet censored parodies, or at least not at that time, and I wouldn't mind if you write a parody on me. And I believe that John had stopped when Salmon asked him not to do it. I think the outcome was fine. The edit by Darklama points exactly to the converse of what you have been saying: he felt John was himself angered. Why don't we find out why John was angered? You said people said on IRC they felt intimidated. I seldom use IRC, and most wikiversians don't. So if you charge that John has intimidated anybody, somebody needs to speak up and say, "Yes, he intimidated me this way and that way. He hurt me this way and that way.". Only in so doing may John have a chance to truly reply, and we have a chance to discuss the differences and solve the problems. I do not exactly doubt your opinions and interpretations, but they are still only your take on the events and are no substitute for facts. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And Salmon of Doubt felt John mocked him in writing a parody in the form of a learning resource. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that Darklama was saying that John was angry - my point was that he was concerned by what John was doing. I disagree that the outcome of recent disputes is "fine" - if you asked Darklama, Salmon of Doubt, Jade Knight, McCormack, SB_Johnny, and Mu301 whether they thought everything is "fine", I would bet on every one of them saying that it's not, and that they still have substantial concerns. And on "speaking up", a basic feature of someone feeling intimidated is that they are not likely to say it to the person directly. You seem to be expecting that everyone will have explicitly said everything that they are feeling - which is quite naive, in my opinion. Hillgentleman, I know you're trying to be fair in this whole situation - and I appreciate that - but I would also appreciate it if you could simply ask yourself whether you think all of this 'smoke' might not indicate the existence of a 'fire'? Do you honestly think this has all been "out of the top of [my] head"? Cormaggio ^talk 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: "out of the top of your head" here means (as in "I don't know it out of the top of my head") you know it so well that you can recite all the details backwards . Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you may very well disagree that the outcome in the dispute between John and Salmon is fine. Nonetheless, the issue had been settled, and, in the current circumstances, is a good outcome, and at least it stands better than some other issues. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt that there is some problem (fire), however that doesn't mean that your solution is the best one, or even a good one. To know what a good solution is (even only in case something similar happens again), one needs to get to the bottom of the problem. I am asking for facts. I am and have always been asking for openness. I do not expect everyone to say everything explicitly all the time; however, in our situation, you are using the custodial tools and you have the obligation to justify it with facts. If there had been a wikiversian who contacted you, saying that e had been hurt, for some specific reasons, you could have stated so, and, if you like, even without mentioning names, saying only "a concerned wikiversian who prefers not to be named said so and so...". Now that there is disagreement between points of views, it is important to know the kernels of truths, and not just your interpretations of the events. You have prefererd to give me such a long discourse and still haven't provided a single victim who has been "hurt". If you have sympathetic ears, you should also listen to the one you have accused. If you say John Schmidt had hurt some wikiversian and that was one of the reasons for the block, please prove it. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. And I'd also make it clear that I do not and never did view John's block as a good solution - and I've been saying so the whole time. I fully acknowledge it's not a nice thing to be blocked - nor to have a review posted about you. But I felt that posting a review was the only way of showing the fuller pattern to what John was doing - that it was complex, and often subtle - but that it was cause for concern. What I've pointed out here, and much of what is in the review is, I think, cause for concern. As I've said, I think some form of hurt or offence is abundantly clear - but it shouldn't matter that you don't see whatever you understand "hurt" to be. You surely see the concern - and perhaps also sympathise with it - and that's the point. Dealing with community issues is about being sensitive to problems, or to people highlighting problems - so I've been responding to the problems that I and others have seen. This is not a domain of "proofs" and "truths" - this is inherently one of feelings, interpretations, and respect for other people. Cormaggio ^talk 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you have stated, Hillgentleman. One thing that makes this hard is there is medical reports or police reports of physical abuse. If there were, this would be a different matter. The kind of hurt being addressed here needs to be recognized and not just left to the victim or the victimizer to prove it. Yes, a sympathetic ear is needed to understand and acknowledge when one hurts. The problem often tends to be when the hurt is not recognized or when similar actions happen to two or more people and only one or some of them are acknowledged to have been hurt and not all of them. It begs a question of why is not or was not everybody recognized in their pain. It becomes a bigger pain when it is not recognized fairly. It even becomes a concern about people's motives, especially when the issue is brought up again and still not recognized by all. Perhaps, it is too hard, too often, to understand exactly why something hurts. It is easier to point out what actions cause pain. I can relate. it hurts me to talk about my children for what has happened. I can point that cause of pain even though others may not be understand why it hurts. Given the events that have happened here, I support Hillgentleman's request to Cormaggio but for Cormaggio to be fair to recognize everybody's pain and not just some of it, and I don't expect a complete explanation of why there is hurt. Dzonatas 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Custodianship

If the community wants me, I would not mind. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)